1:23-cv-00180•Bryan-Lever v. FCI Berlin, Warden
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Anderson Bryan-Lever v. FCI Berlin, Warden Case No. 1:23-cv-00180-SE ORDER No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated February 12, 2024 (doc. no. 13). For the reasons explained therein, respondent’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (doc. no. 5) is granted. “[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate’s report are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986) (after proper notice, failure to file a specific objection to magistrate’s report will waive the right to appeal). Petitioner’s action is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to his ability to file a new § 2241 action once he exhausts his administrative remedies. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Samantha D. Elliott United States District Judge Date: March 27, 2024 cc: Anderson Bryan-Lever, pro se Case 1:23-cv-00180-SE Document 14 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 2
Counsel of Record Case 1:23-cv-00180-SE Document 14 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 2
1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Anderson Bryan-Lever Vv. Case No. 1:23-cv-00180-SE FCI Berlin, Warden ORDER No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated February 12, 2024 (doc. no. 13). For the reasons explained therein, respondent’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (doc. no. 5) is granted. “[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate’s report are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (lst Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (lst Cir. 1986) (after proper notice, failure to file a specific objection to magistrate’s report will waive the right to appeal). Petitioner’s action is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to his ability to file a new § 2241 action once he exhausts his administrative remedies. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. SDS }| | | SO ORDERED. Samantha D. Elliott United States District Judge Date: March 27, 2024 cc: Anderson Bryan-Lever, pro se AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO Case 1:23-cv-00180-SE Document 14 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 2 Counsel of Record
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.