Powell v. Entezl

• Court: District Court, N.D. West Virginia
• Decided: July 1, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-00149
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

QUINNE POWELL,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-149 (Judge Kleeh)

JENNIFER SAAD,

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 11] AND DISMISSING THE PETITION AS MOOT [DKT. NO. 1]

On August 2, 2018, the pro se Petitioner, Quinne Powell (“Petitioner”), an inmate at FCI Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, filed a petition in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Dkt. No. 1] challenging his life sentence and requesting that it be vacated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial review. On April 20, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss the petition as moot based on Petitioner’s release from custody on October 4, 2019 [Dkt. No. 11 at 5]. The R&R also informed the parties that they “shall have fourteen (14) days (filing of objections) and then three days (mailing/service), from the date of filing this Report and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 11]

Recommendation” within which to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection” [Dkt. No. 11 at 6]. It further warned that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals” [Id.]. The docket reflects that service of the R&R was accepted April 23, 2021 [Dkt. No. 12]. To date, no objections have been filed. When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. This Court agrees that the petition should be dismissed as moot as Petitioner was released ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 11]

from Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) custody on October 4, 2019. Accordingly, upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Dkt. No. 11]. The § 2241 Petition [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to the pro se Petitioner via certified mail, return receipt requested. DATED: July 1, 2021

__/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh___________ THOMAS S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE