Lopez-Hidalgo v. Napolitano et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. The Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 1 and DISMISSES it WITH PREJUDICE. This matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 2/1/2013. (cwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

PAUL R. LOPEZ-HIDALGO,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-115
(JUDGE GROH)

JANET NAPOLITANO
Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security,
JOHN MORTON, Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, GARY MEAD,
Director, Enforcement and Removal
Operations, STACIA HYLTON, Director,
U.S. Marshall Service, MIKE LAWSON,
Warden, Potomac Highlands Regional
Jail, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of
the U.S.,
Respondents.

ORDER ADOPTING OPINION/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.
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 December 3, 2012 [Doc. 17]. In that filing, the magistrate judge
recommended that this Court dismiss with prejudice the Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and
grant Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 petitioner's 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). Objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R & R were due
within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the same, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted by
Petitioner’s counsel and Respondents’ counsel on December 3, 2012 via electronic service.
Neither party filed objections to the R & R. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and
recommendation for clear error.
Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court
that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] should be, and is,
hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s
report. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's application under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES it WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, this matter is hereby
ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment for Respondent.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to
any pro se parties. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is directed
to enter judgment in this matter.

DATED: February 1, 2013