Jones v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/16/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Larry Darnell Jones, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of South Carolina,
Defendant.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 1:11-2476-TMC

OPINION and ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d),

D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge. On January 20, 2012,
Magistrate Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending
the Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Dkt. #
20). 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 Report herein without a
recitation.
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 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
(Dkt. # 20 at 7). 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 (Dkt. # 20) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Petition in the above-captioned case is
DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
February 16, 2012

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.

2