IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling FRANCOIS TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-207 Judge Bailey ROBERT HUDGINS, Warden, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled case came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 5] prepared by United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone, and filed on September 28, 2020. 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 September 28, 2020, wherein he recommends that petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

(Doc. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to

(b)(1)(c), this Courtis 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 factuat or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation te 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, pursuantto

(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On October 16, 2020, this Court granted petitioner an extension of time to file objections on or before November 16, 2020. See (Doc. 9]. □□ date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, itis the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 5] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s report. Accordingly, petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

[Doc. 1] is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Additionally, petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [Doc. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT. 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. Itis 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: November 24, 2020.

UNI TES DISTRICT JU