Stanley v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 30 . It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner's petition 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/18/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Mark Christopher Stanley, #343332,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina; C. Kelly
)
Jackson, Solicitor; Donald Beckwith,
)
Warden; Jason W. Corbett, Solicitor,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 1:11-cv-884-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.
30]. Petitioner was an inmate housed at the Wateree River Correctional Institution(“WRCI”) at
the time of the Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judges’ Report and Recommendation,
filed on September 23, 2011, recommends that this case, based on Petitioner’s Amended Petition
for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition [Doc. 16], be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process [Doc. 1] . The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. 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 and Recommendation 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

1

recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
30-1]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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 and
Recommendation 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 Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 30]. It is therefore
ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and services of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 18, 2011

2