Smith v. $30,619.85, in rem or quasi in rem, et. al.

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court ORDERS the Petitioners 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Additionally, because his claims are improper under § 2241, the Court DENIES the Petitioners Motion to Transfer Case [ECF No. 10 . The Court makes no certificate of appealability determination in this matter. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 1/27/17. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pet via cert. return rec't mail at RRM Atlanta as indicated on BOP website per chambers. (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/27/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

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

NATHAN SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-100
(GROH)

$30,619.85, in rem or quasi in rem,
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 September 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his R&R, recommending
this Court dismiss without 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 September 12, 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. 8] 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] DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Additionally, because his
claims are improper under § 2241, the Court DENIES the Petitioner’s Motion to Transfer
Case [ECF No. 10].
The Court makes no certificate of appealability determination in this matter.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a separate judgment order, remove this case from
the Court’s active docket and transmit a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner.
DATED: January 27, 2017

2