Mason v. USA

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENIES and DISMISSES withprejudice on 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). This matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court, and the Clerk is directed t o enter a separate judgment in favor of respondent. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 7/22/14. (njz) copy emailed to pro se pet via cert. return rec't mail (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/22/2014: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG JAMELL MASON, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-54 Crim. Action No. 3:09-CR-87-6 (BAILEY) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 John S. Kaull. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his R&R [Civ. Doc. 9, Crim. Doc. 545] on June 26, 2014. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny and dismiss petitioner’s § 2255 petition [Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 471]. 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 Kaull’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 July 2, 2014. See [Doc. 10]. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 [Civ. Doc. 9, Crim. Doc. 545] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. As such, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES with prejudice the petitioner’s § 2255 petition [Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 471], and petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the Record [Crim. Doc. 486] is DENIED as moot. This matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court, and the Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of respondent. 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: July 22, 2014. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?