Aikens v. Warden of FCI Williamsburg

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report 13 and incorporates it here. It is therefore ORDERED that the Petitioner's § 2254 petition in the above-captioned action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and that the Attorney General of Georgia shall be added to the docket as a Respondent. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/7/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Jim Henry Aikens,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, FCI Williamsburg,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 1:11-414-TMC

ORDER

Jim Henry Aikens (Petitioner), a pro se federal prisoner, filed this habeas action against the
Respondent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a Georgia state court conviction. The
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Report), filed on May 3, 2011 (Dkt. No. 13),
recommends that the court transfer this § 2254 habeas action to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, and the Report further recommends that the court direct that the
Attorney General of Georgia be added to the docket as a Respondent. The Report sets forth in
detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Report
without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
recommendation to this court.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a

The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See 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 objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (Dkt. No. 13-1).

However, Petitioner has filed no objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.
1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge's Report (Dkt. No. 13) and incorporates it here. It is therefore ORDERED that
the Petitioner’s § 2254 petition in the above-captioned action be TRANSFERRED to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and that the Attorney General of Georgia
shall be added to the docket as a Respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain___________
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 7, 2011

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.