IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG

NANCY JANE STAMPER,

Petitioner,

v. Civ. Action No. 1:20-CV-200 (Kleeh)

WARDEN P. ADAMS,

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 5]

On August 13, 2020, the pro se Petitioner, Nancy Jane Stamper (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

. Pursuant to

and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial review. On August 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice. The R&R also informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 5]

the Circuit Court of Appeals.” The docket reflects that Petitioner accepted service of the R&R on August 21, 2020. See ECF No. 8. To date, no objections have been filed. When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made.

(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez,

, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 5]. The petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner’s pending

motion to proceed as a pauper [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a Court-approved form Bivens packet, should Petitioner wish to proceed with her claims in a civil rights action. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket and DIRECTS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 5]

the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to the pro se Petitioner via certified mail, return receipt requested. DATED: September 10, 2020

____________________________ THOMAS S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE