MARIO ROEBUCK v. RICK MULLGRAV

Virgin Islands

MARIO ROEBUCK v. RICK MULLGRAV

DecidedMarch 16, 2026

Docket1:17-cv-00053

StatusUnknown

This text of MARIO ROEBUCK v. RICK MULLGRAV (MARIO ROEBUCK v. RICK MULLGRAV) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MARIO ROEBUCK v. RICK MULLGRAV, (vid 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

MARIO ROEBUCK, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:17-cv-0053 ) RICK MULLGRAV, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER1 BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge George W. Cannon, Jr., filed on May 23, 2018, recommending dismissal of the petition. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not file an objection. The Court having conducted a de novo review of this matter making an independent determination finding no error in the R&R,2 it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Petitioner filed on December 8, 2017, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Mario Roebuck at his last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Dated: March 16, 2026 /s/ Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge

1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

MARIO ROEBUCK, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:17-cv-0053 ) RICK MULLGRAV, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER1 BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge George W. Cannon, Jr., filed on May 23, 2018, recommending dismissal of the petition. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not file an objection. The Court having conducted a de novo review of this matter making an independent determination finding no error in the R&R,2 it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Petitioner filed on December 8, 2017, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Mario Roebuck at his last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Dated: March 16, 2026 /s/ Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge

1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MARIO ROEBUCK v. RICK MULLGRAV, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mario-roebuck-v-rick-mullgrav-vid-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack