Mubang v. Coakley

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This Court ORDERS that the § 2241 petition [Doc. 1 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this case from the acti ve docket of this Court. As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 3/27/18. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pet via cert. return rec't mail (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/27/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
THERESA S. MUBANG,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-20
(BAILEY)
JOE COAKLEY, Complex;
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, Maryland,
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 James E. Seibert [Doc.
6]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, 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 5, 2018, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss
the petitioner’s § 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
1

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 indicates the petitioner accepted service on March 8, 2018 [Doc. 7]. To date,
petitioner has not filed any objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear
error.
Conclusion
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 6] 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 § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 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 Mubang 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.

2

DATED: March 27, 2018.

3