Shippy v. Cherokee County Detention Center

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. This case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 10/2/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTm :c. 'l' .!'5C{\V~ V c " ,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
.,
•..., ··" '.sc

IDIl OCT - 3 P 12: 30
Shondreka Shippy, #17927-171 ,
Petitioner,
v.

Warden , Cherokee County
Detention Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:13-474-S6

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Shondreka Shippy's pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 2241 , which was filed on February 21 , 2013.
Pursuant to Local Rule 73.02(6)(2)(a), the matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On August 14, 2013 , the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
("R&R"), analyzing the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this case based
on the Petitioner's failure to showthata motion pursuantto 28 U.S.C . § 2255 is inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of her detention. See 28 U.S.C . § 2255; Swain v. Pressley,
430 U.S. 372 , 381 (1977) . Attached the R&R was a notice advising the Petitioner of her
right to file written, specific objections to the R&R within fourteen days of receiving a copy.
On September 5, 2013, the Court received a change of address notice from the Plaintiff,
and in the interest of fairness, the Court re-mailed the R&R to her new address, giving her
an additional fourteen-day period to file objections. This period expired on September 26,
2013, and no objections have been filed to date.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the respons ibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the R&R to which
specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I) . In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence ofa
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must
'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation .' ") (quoting Fed . R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record , the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court adopts the R&R (Entry 15) as the Order of the Court and

dismisses this case .

q

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sol Blatt, Jr.
Senior United

~~2013
Charleston , South Carolina

2