Bryan v. Stevens et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court accepts the Report. THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report 10 is ACCEPTED, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED; and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process upon the respondent. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/3/2010. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
T. Terrell Bryan,
) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) Warden Stevens, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________)
C.A. No. 1:10-2106-TLW-SVH
O RD ER
The pro se petitioner, an inmate at the South Carolina Department of Corrections, seeks habeas corpus relief under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Doc. # 1). This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process upon the respondent. (Doc. # 10). Petitioner has filed objections to the Report. (Docs. # 12 & # 13). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not 1
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto. The Court accepts the Report. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 10), petitioner's objections are OVERRULED (Docs. # 12 & # 13); and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process upon the respondent. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L.Wooten TERRY L. WOOTEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 3, 2010 Florence, South Carolina
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?