IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling MARCUS CROCKER, Petitioner, Vv. CIVIL ACTION No. 5:20-CV-142 Judge Bailey BRYAN ANTONELLI, Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 15]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on January 12, 2021, wherein he recommends that the respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] be granted and the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

[Doc. 1] be denied and dismissed with 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, 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). this Court required to conduct a de novo review when the party makes

only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982). 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). Pro se filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by licensed attorneys, however, courts are not required to create objections where none exist. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972); Gordon v. Leeke,

(4th Cir. 19771). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the R&R, pursuant to

(b)(1} and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having filed no objections’ within that time frame, petitioner has waived his right to both de novo review and to appeal this Court's Order pursuant to

(b)(1). Consequently, the R&R will be reviewed for clear error. Having reviewed the R&R for clear error, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 15] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. The respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] is hereby

‘This Court notes that the petitioner filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court stating that he is “currently in the process of exhausting [his] administrative grievances.” See [Doc. 16]. He further states that he has already filed a BP-8, BP-9, and BP-10 and is awaiting a response from the Regional Director. [Id.]. Even if this is the case, the petitioner still failed to exhaust his administrative grievances prior to filing his petition. Therefore, this letter/objection is moot.

GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

[Doc. 1] be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH 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. 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: February 8, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE