Golston v. Mr. Entzel ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING MAURICE GOLSTON, Petitioner, Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-216 (BAILEY) MR. ENTZEL, Warden, FCI Hazelton WV, 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. 7). 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 September 30, 2019, wherein he recommends that petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] be dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review 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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On October 23, 2019, petitioner filed a letter stating he needed an extension which this Court construed as a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 9]. On October 24, 2019, this Court granted the motion and gave petitioner twenty-one (21) days from receipt of that Order to file objections. [Doc. 10]. Service of that Order was accepted on October 31, 2019. Accordingly, petitioner had until November 21, 2019 to file objections to the R&R. 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. 7] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 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: December 2, 2019. fair/ BAILEY 3H UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE