Dreher v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting the Magistrate Judge's Order and Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26 ), dismissing the petition without prejudice and without requiring respondent to file a return. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 03/12/2025. (cpri )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Davinne Shabaz Dreher,

Civil Action No. 0:24-5952-CMC
Petitioner,

vs.

ORDER

Warden, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center,
Respondent.
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On February 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the Petition be
dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a return, as it fails to state
facts sufficient to meet the test in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ECF No. 26. The
Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner submitted a document, filed
as a letter, on February 24, 2025. ECF No. 29. No other objections were received within the
allowed time frame.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“in the absence of a 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.”) (citation omitted).
Petitioner’s letter states:
So did my commission for lawyer conduct disciplinary consel been updated? I have
not received an answer or motion for my civil action. Was a motion or answer in
my civil action served? I did not receive one. If so, please forward me a copy. Will
the Alvin S. Glenn detention center receive a time and date when I report, to my
order to report and recommendation?
ECF No. 29 at 2 (errors in original).
Petitioner’s objections are nonsensical. He appears to reference an action for lawyer
misconduct; however, such a proceeding would not be pending in this court. Neither has an answer
or motion been filed, as the Magistrate Judge determined his case should be summarily dismissed.
ECF No. 26. Finally, Petitioner references a time to report in this case – it appears he may believe
he will be called to a court appearance regarding the Report and Recommendation.
However, the Magistrate Judge’s Report clearly laid out the reasons for recommended
summary dismissal and the procedure for Petitioner to object in writing. ECF No. 26 at 4-5.
Petitioner is not entitled to an appearance in this action. Neither does he raise any relevant
objections to the Report’s finding regarding Younger.

2

Accordingly, as the Supreme Court has directed federal courts should not equitably
interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and extraordinary of
circumstances, which do not appear here, abstention is appropriate. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44.
Petitioner has an adequate remedy at law in state court to address the issues he has raised regarding
his criminal charges.
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner’s filing, the court agrees with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. The court therefore adopts and incorporates the Report and
Recommendation by reference in this order. This petition is dismissed without prejudice and
without requiring respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
March 12, 2025

3