Bello v. Entzel ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS ALEJANDRO BELLO, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-59 (BAILEY) ENTZEL, Warden, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 22]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on February 19, 2019, wherein he recommends that respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15] be granted, and petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novoreview of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted on February 26, 2019 [Doc. 23]. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15} is hereby GRANTED and petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of respondent. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner. DATED: March 18, 2019. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE