Thetford et al v. Ware et al

Filing 103

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF. NO. 90 ). The Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 90 ). The Motion is DENIED as moot and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 2/8/2021. (Copy PS parties by cert. mail) (dk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/8/2021: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (dk).

Case 1:20-cv-00082-TSK-MJA Document 103 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 915

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MICHAEL HEATH THETFORD,
ANGEL CENTENO-MORALES, and
NELSON R. ZAPATA-VICENTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civ. Action No. 1:20-CV-82
(Judge Kleeh)

ROGER WARE,
ALVIN JAMES WARRICK,
COLITHA PATRICE BUSH,
RONALD BENNETT SHEPHERD,
TANYA L. RICHARD,
PRIVATE SERVICES, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 90]
On May 14, 2020, the pro se Plaintiff, Michael Heath Thetford
(“Thetford”),

filed

Motion

for

Writ

of

Habeas

Corpus

Ad

Testificandum Production of Incarcerated Witnesses (“Motion”),
wherein Thetford requests this Court require certain incarcerated
persons

be

brought

before

this

Court

for

a

hearing

on

the

preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 20].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court
referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Aloi for initial review. On November 3, 2020, the Magistrate Judge
entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the
Court deny the Motion as moot. [ECF No. 90].
The R&R also informed the parties that they had fourteen (14)

Case 1:20-cv-00082-TSK-MJA Document 103 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 916
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 90]
days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written
objections,

identifying

the

portions

of

the

Report

and

Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such
objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file
written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo
review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by
the Circuit Court of Appeals.” The docket reflects that Petitioner
accepted service of the R&R on August 10, 2020. [See ECF No. 34].
To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt,
without

explanation,

any

of

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete
v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will
uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been
made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because

no

party

has

objected,

the

Court

is

under

no

obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court
reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding
no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 90]. The Motion
is DENIED as moot and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 1:20-cv-00082-TSK-MJA Document 103 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 917
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 90]
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all
pro se parties via certified mail, return receipt requested, and
to counsel of record via email.
DATED: February 8, 2021
/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE