Mendoza-Villegas v. Williams

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court ORDERS the Petitioners 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1 DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. Because the instant petition seeks relief pursuant to § 2241, the Court makes no cer tificate of appealability determination in this matter.The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order in favor of theRespondent and remove this case from the Courts active docket. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 1/23/17. (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

OMAR MENDOZA-VILLEGAS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-110
(GROH)

C. WILLIAMS, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi. Pursuant to this
Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of
an R&R. On August 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his R&R, recommending this
Court deny with prejudice the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
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, this Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file objections in a timely manner
constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s order.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

In this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to Magistrate Judge Aloi’s R&R were due within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the same. The Petitioner was served with
the R&R on August 19, 2016. To date, neither party has filed objections. Accordingly,
this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
Upon review, and finding no error, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Aloi’s
Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 16] should be, and is, hereby ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated therein. The Court ORDERS the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition [ECF No. 1] DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.
Because the instant petition seeks relief pursuant to § 2241, the Court makes no
certificate of appealability determination in this matter.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order in favor of the
Respondent, remove this case from the Court’s active docket and transmit a copy of this
Order to the pro se Petitioner.
DATED: January 23, 2017

2