Watkins v. USA

Filing 9

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 7 Report and Recommendations on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Charles Derrick Watkin s. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgmentin favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court. The Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 7/22/15. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pet via cert. return rec't mail

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

CHARLES DERRICK WATKINS,
Petitioner-Defendant,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-138
CRIM. ACTION NO. 3:10-CR-77
(BAILEY)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Plaintiff.

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. Pursuant
to this Court’s Local Rules, 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 on June 10, 2015 [Civ. Doc. 7, Crim. Doc. 79], recommending that petitioner’s
habeas petition [Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 67] 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 timely
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.

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 Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects service was accepted on June 15,
2015 [Civ. Doc. 8, Crim. Doc. 80]. 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 [Civ. Doc. 7, Crim. Doc. 79] 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 habeas petition [Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 67] 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 Mr. Watkins 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.
DATED: July 22, 2015.

-2-