IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING WANDA C. SHORTER, Petitioner, Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-45 (BAILEY) WARDEN, FCI Hazelton, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 8]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on June 25, 2020, wherein he recommends that petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

[Doc. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice. Although no objections were filed, petitioner did file a letter, which this Court construes as a Motion to Apply Programming Credits Toward Home Confinement [Doc. 12], filed July 24, 2020. 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, 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 Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to

(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED fer the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

[Doc. 1] is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of respondent. Further, as to petitioner's motion [Doc. 12], petitioner provides no information about the programming credits she references, nor does she cite any authority which would show that either the B.O.P. or this Court can apply such credits to shorten the duration of home confinement. Accordingly, the Motion [Doc. 12] is hereby DENIED. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.

DATED: August 19, 2020.

ple BAILEY aS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE