Opinion
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: 05-40033, CIVIL CASE NO.: 03-50051.
January 5, 2007
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Before the Court is Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on February 1, 2005, and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe, filed on November 30, 2006. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation recommended that this Court deny Petitioner's motion. The Magistrate Judge also notified the parties that any objections must be filed within ten days of service. No party has filed objections to the report and recommendations.
The Court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (Gadola, J.). As the Supreme Court observed, "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Whalen's report and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e), this Court need not conduct a review.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [docket entry 36] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus [docket entry 19] is DENIED.