Harris v. Oddo

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 22 ). The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's 22 Report and Recommendation in its entirety, denies the 1 Petition and ORDERS this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and stricken from the Court's active docket. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment order in this matter. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 8/22/17. (Copy PS Petitioner via cert. mail)(mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/22/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
NAKIE HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV64
(Judge Keeley)

LEONARD ODDO,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 22]
On April 13, 2015, the pro

se

petitioner, Nakie Harris

(“Harris”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, which the Court referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial screening and a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with LR PL P 2.
On July 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued an R&R, in
which he recommended that the Court deny and dismiss Harris’s
petition for lack of jurisdiction (dkt. no. 22 at 9). The Clerk
originally mailed the R&R to FCI Hazelton at the address of record
for Harris. On July 17, 2017, Harris filed a notice informing the
Court that he had moved to FCI Leavenworth, Kansas. Consequently,
the original mailing of the R&R was returned as undeliverable on
July 21, 2017. In possession of the new address for Harris, the
Clerk re-mailed the R&R, which was accepted by Harris at FCI
Leavenworth on August 4, 2017 (dkt. no. 28).
The R&R also specifically warned Harris he had fourteen days
in which to file any written objections to the R&R, and that his

HARRIS V. ODDO

1:15CV64

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 22]
failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver
of any appellate rights he might otherwise have on this issue (dkt.
no. 22 at 9). The parties did not timely file any objections.1
Consequently, finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in
its entirety (Dkt. No. 22), DENIES the petition (dkt. no. 1), and
ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and stricken
from the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
this Order to the pro se petitioner, certified mail, return receipt
requested.
Dated: August 22, 2017.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only
waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the
Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue
presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells
v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).
2