Paulino v. Ray

District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Paulino v. Ray

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling

RAFAEL PAULINO, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 5:23-CV-275 Judge Bailey HEATHER RAY, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The above referenced case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20] be granted and the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241

[Doc. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140

(1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge’s report pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United

States v. Schronce,

727 F.2d 91

(4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,

467 U.S. 1208

(1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Doc. 29] is ADOPTED. Moreover, the respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20] is GRANTED and the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuantto

28 U.S.C. § 2241

[Doc. 1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED TO STRIKE the above- styled matter 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 herein and to send a copy to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as shown on the docket. DATED: January 3, 2024.

he (Os LS JOHN PRESTON BAILEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 □

Reference

Status
Unknown