Muse v. Entzel

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 04/26/2021. (cwm) Copy mailed to pro se petitioner by CMRR.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
ALBERTIS L. MUSE,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:19-CV-93
(GROH)

PAUL ADAMS, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Now before the Court is a 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 No. 23] on February 22, 2021. Therein, Magistrate
Judge Trumble recommends that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and the
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of
the magistrate judge’s findings where 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 to which no objection is made. 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 service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to
the Petitioner by certified mail on February 22, 2021. ECF No. 23. The Petitioner
accepted service on February 26, 2021.

To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, this Court reviews the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review and thoughtful consideration, it is the opinion of this Court that
Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R [ECF No. 23] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED
ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED [ECF No. 17] and the Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] is
DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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 pro se Petitioner by certified
mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: April 26, 2021

2