The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
RONALD L. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-CV-247
(GROH)
WARDEN BROWN,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action
was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R.
Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 24] on September 13, 2024.
Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner’s § 2241 petition
[ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review
of the magistrate judge’s findings where 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 to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo
review and Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28.U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder
v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen plus
three days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed
to the Petitioner by certified mail on September 13, 2024. ECF No. 24. Despite the
Petitioner not updating his address, the Court—in light of prior Fourth Circuit
decisions—directed the Clerk to mail copies to the address on the docket and according
to the BOP’s inmate locator. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this
Court reviews the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review and thoughtful consideration, it is the opinion of this Court
that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R [ECF No. 24] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the Motion
to Dismiss [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED, and the Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1]
is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE as MOOT any other pending Motions and to
mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt
requested, at his last Known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: November 13, 2024
<hig@
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE