Harris v. R. M. Wolfe

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Respondent's 11 Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and petitioner's 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIE D and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, petitioner's 16 Motion Requesting an Evidentiary Hearing is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. 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. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 10/5/21. (Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr) (lmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/5/2021: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (lmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Wheeling
STEPHEN K. HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-52
Judge Bailey

R.M. WOLFE, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above referenced case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be granted and petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 [Doc. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Moreover,

Magistrate Judge Mazzone recommends that petitioner’s Motion Requesting an Evidentiary
Hearing [Doc. 16] be denied as moot.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
magistrate judge’s report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that
Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who
fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge’s report pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United
1

States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91(4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No
objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s report
accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation [Doc. 17]is AFFIRMED, and Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] is GRANTED and
petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 [Doc. 1] is DENIED

and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, petitioner’s Motion Requesting an
Evidentiary Hearing [Doc. 16] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. 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.
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: October 5, 2021.

rNc~V

BAILEY
ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2