Hannah v. Saad

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Aloi's 12 Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED; Petitioner's 1 Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; this matter is STRICKEN from the a ctive docket and the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Respondent. This Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 6/15/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(copy Petitioner)(cnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
MARK HANNAH,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-107
(BAILEY)

WARDEN SAAD,
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.
12]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi
for submission of a proposed report and recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Aloi
filed his R&R on May 15, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court deny the petitioner’s
§ 2241 petition without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to file a Bivens1 action.
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.
1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 399

(1971).

1

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 service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The docket reflects that service was accepted on May 18, 2017. [Doc. 13]. 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. 12] 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 Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[Doc. 1] be DENIED and 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 the respondent.
As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby
DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that the petitioner 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 herein
and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
DATED: June 15, 2017.

2