Pearson v. Williams

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Aloi's 7 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Petitioner's 1 Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Petitioner's 6 Emergency Petition/Motio n to Grant his Petition or Order Respondent to Show Cause is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment for the Respondent and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court. This Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 2/16/16. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(copy Petitioner)(cnd) Modified relationship on 2/16/2016 (cnd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
CHRISTIAN PEARSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-72
(BAILEY)
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden,
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 Michael John Aloi [Doc.
7]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi
for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Aloi
filed his R&R on January 21, 2016, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the
petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition with 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 Aloi’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 reflects that service was accepted on January 26, 2016 [Doc. 8]. 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, this Court

ORDERS that the petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Petitioner’s Emergency Petition/Motion to Grant his
Petition or Order Respondent to Show Cause [Doc. 6] is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court
further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this
case from the active docket of this Court.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby
DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that Mr. Pearson has failed to make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
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.
DATED: February 16, 2016.

2