Williams v. Atkinson

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 24 Report and Recommendations, granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Kenny Atkinson. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/1/2012. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Corey Antione Williams,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden Kenny Atkinson,
Respondent.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:11-2057-TMC
ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate
Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) filed in this action on May 9, 2012 recommending that the
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the Petition be denied. (Dkt. #
24).

The Magistrate Judge provided Petitioner a notice advising him of his right to file

objections to the Report. (Dkt. # 24 at 10). Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report on May 25, 2012. (Dkt. # 26).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct
a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not

direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a
timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear
error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted and that the Petition be denied.

As noted above, Plaintiff filed

objections to the Report which the Court has carefully reviewed. However, the Plaintiff’s
objections provide no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended disposition.

The objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive

portions of the Report or merely restate Plaintiff’s claims.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the Court finds Petitioner’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 16) is GRANTED
and the Petition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 1, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if applicable.