Edwards v. USA

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 1/29/2018. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/29/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
RICHARD SHAWN EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.

CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CR-9
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-134
(GROH)

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 (AR&R@) of United States Magistrate Judge James E.
Seibert. Pursuant to the Local Rules, this civil action was referred to Judge Seibert for
submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Seibert issued an R&R [ECF No. 84]
on December 21, 2017. In the R&R, Judge Seibert recommends that the Petitioner’s
petition be denied and dismissed without 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 Seibert=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 by the pro se Petitioner on January 3, 2018.
ECF No. 86. Therefore, after allowing additional time for transit in the mail, 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
Seibert=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 84] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner by
certified mail, return receipt requested, at her last known address as reflected on the
docket sheet.

DATED: January 29, 2018

2