Dodd v. Stevenson et al

Filing 41

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation. Forthe reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate JudgesReport and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #36). 36 28 . Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/22/08. (ahen, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Jimmy Dodd, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) Robert M. Stevenson, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:07-193

ORDER
On January 22, 2007, the petitioner, Jimmy Dodd, ("petitioner") proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. #1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #36). On September 16, 2008 the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. #36). The petitioner filed no objections to the report. Objections were due on October 3, 2008. The District Court did review the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the review of the Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court concludes there is no basis for relief. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,

1

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #36). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge December 22, 2008 Florence, South Carolina

2