Moss v. United States of America et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 11 Report and Recommendations, dismissing petition without prejudice and without requiring the respondents to file a return. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/10/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Todd L. Moss, a/k/a
Todd Lamar Moss,
Petitioner,
vs.
United States of America, Ms. Mildred
Rivera,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 0:10-2482-HMH-PJG
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Todd L. Moss (“Moss”) seeks habeas
corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate
Judge Gossett recommends that Moss’ petition be dismissed without prejudice and without
requiring the respondents to file a return.
Moss filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1984). In the absence of specific 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).
Upon review, the court finds that Moss’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Further, the court has conducted a de novo review and concludes that the magistrate
judge has properly recited the facts and applied the law. Therefore, after a thorough review of
the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Moss’ petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring
the respondents to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 10, 2011
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty
(60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?