The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Wheeling
MATTHEW DALE,
Petitioner,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-171
Judge Bailey
WARDEN R. BROWN,
Respondent.
ORDER
The above referenced case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge's
recommendation that respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment be granted and petitioner's Petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
See [Doc. 17 at 7].
On December 10, 2024, this Court granted petitioner’s request for an extension of
time to file his response or reply to the Report and Recommendation, setting the deadline
for February 10, 2025. See [Docs. 18 & 19].
On December 16, 2024, this Court denied petitioner's request to stay the
above-styled case and reiterated to petitioner that he must file any objection to the Report
and Recommendation on or before February 10, 2025. See [Docs. 20 & 21].
Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation within the
time frame provided to him by this Court. Thus, this Court will address and rule on the
Report and Recommendation.
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, Magistrate Judge
Mazzone’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] is ADOPTED. Respondent's Motion
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] is GRANTED and
petitioner's Petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and 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 also directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se petitioner by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket
sheet.
DATED: February 11, 2025.
BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE