Washington v. Warden

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss filed by Warden and denying and dismissing with prejudice 6 Petition. This case is ordered stricken from the docket. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 4/22/2015. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/22/2015: # 1 certified mail receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
WILDOR WASHINGTON, II,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-CV-135
(GROH)

WARDEN, F.C.I. MORGANTOWN,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W.
Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R,
[ECF 14], on March 13, 2015. In the R&R, he recommends that this Court grant the
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF 9], and that the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 CourtApproved Form Petition, [ECF 6], be denied and dismissed 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a
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 Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen plus three
days of the Petitioner being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Service was accepted at the Federal Correctional Institution, Morgantown,
on March 19, 2015. Therefore, after allowing for additional time to ensure personal receipt,
the Court finds that the deadline for the Petitioner to submit objections to the R&R has
passed. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for
clear error.
Upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge
Trumble’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF 14], should be, and is, hereby ORDERED
ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF 9. The Court DENIES the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 Court-Approved Form Petition, [ECF 6], and ORDERS that it be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for the Respondent. As the Petitioner is a
federal prisoner seeking relief through a § 2241 petition, the Court makes no certificate of
appealability determination in this matter.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and pro
se parties.
DATED: April 22, 2015

2