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

RAY COOK, Petitioner, V. CIV. ACT. NO. 5:24-CV-197 Judge Bailey DONALD F. AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent. ORDER The above-referenced case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this matter be 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.

(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,

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

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

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

(1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. '

‘ Pursuant to the R&R, petitioner had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Report and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court “specific

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. 16] is ADOPTED, the Petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED TO STRIKE the above-styled 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 herein and to pro se petitioner. DATED: February 11, 2025.

JO TON BAILEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

written objections identifying those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.” See [Doc. 16 at 12 (emphasis in original)]. Service of the R&R was accepted on January 13, 2025. See [Doc. 17]. January 13, 2025, was twenty-nine (29) days ago. Thus, this Court did not just wait the standard fourteen (14) days—this Court waited an additional fifteen (15) days before ruling on the pending R&R.