IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MICHAEL D. HESS, Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-223 JOHN SHEELEY, Warden of the Eastern Regional Jail,1 Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi [Dkt. No. 7]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Aloi filed his R&R on December 19, 2018, wherein he recommends the § 2254 petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to

(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,

1 Pursuant to the magistrate judge’s directive in the report and recommendation [Dkt. No. 7] and Rule 2 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Clerk corrected the docket to reflect that respondent is the state officer who has custody of petitioner. 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,

(1985).

In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order.

(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Aloi’s R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to

(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket indicates the petitioner accepted service on December 24, 2018 [Dkt. No. 10]. To date, petitioner has not filed any objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Conclusion Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this

Court that the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 7] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the § 2254 petition [Dkt. No. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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. As a final matter, upon an independent review of the record, this Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability, finding that the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). 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 by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.

DATED: February 6, 2019 /s/ Thomas S. Kleeh THOMAS S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE