Holt v. Entzel ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG JAMAR ASA HOLT, SR., Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-CV-46 (GROH) WARDEN ENTZEL, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 32] on May 15, 2019. Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner=s § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge=s findings where 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 to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a petitioner’s 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). Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner on May 15, 2019. ECF No. 11. The Petitioner accepted service on May 20, 2019. ECF No. 33. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested and was granted several extensions of time to respond. ECF Nos. 34, 35, 37, 39. Ultimately, the Court ordered that the Petitioner file any objections on or before June 28, 2019. ECF No. 41. To □□□□□ no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 32] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Petitioner's § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in alternative, for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet. DATED: July 8, 2019 : 7) □□ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE