Mubang v. USA

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judges Report and Recommendation 18 should be, and is, ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report. This Court GRAN TS the respondents Motion to Dismiss or, in theAlternative, Motion for Summary Judgment 13 and DISMISSES with prejudice the petitioners Motion to Modify Restitution Order 1 . This matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendants. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/16/14. (jss) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/16/2014: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jss).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
THERESA S. MUBANG,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-77
(Judge Bailey)

TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. By
Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a
proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R&R
on March 24, 2014 [Doc. 18]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this
Court dismiss with prejudice the petitioner’s habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
on the ground that the District of Maryland and the District of Virginia ordered the petitioner
to make restitution payments and therefore the petitioner’s proper remedy to seek
modification of restitution payments is through her team unit at USP Hazelton [Doc. 18 at
8].
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

1

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 Seibert’s R&R were due within
fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The docket sheet reflects that service was accepted on March 27, 2014 [Doc. 19]. To date,
no objections have been filed.
Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court
that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 18] should be, and is,
hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s
report. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] and hereby DISMISSES with
prejudice the petitioner’s Motion to Modify Restitution Order [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this
matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk
is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendants.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and
to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.

2

DATED: April 16, 2014.

3