Compson v. Knowlin et al
ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process; a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 02/14/2012. (ttil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Zachary Compson, #344972
Warden Gregory Knowlin,
Civil Action No.: 1: 11-3469-RMG
In this case, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. As a result, this case was automatically referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC.
On January 20, 2012, the Magistrate issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process due to Petitioner's admitted failure to exhaust his state court
remedies prior to seeking habeas relief. (Dkt. No. 13). The Magistrate instructed Petitioner of
the deadline for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious
consequences for failing to do so.
(Id. at 7).
Despite the Magistrate's clear instructions,
Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. As explained herein,
the Court adopts the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and dismisses Petitioner's
Petition without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions."
Where, as in this case, the Petitioner fails to file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon reviewing the record, this Court agrees with, and wholly adopts, the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. In this case, Petitioner seeks to be "paroled out" to
Onondaga County, New York, and Petitioner states that the parole examiner informed him that
judicial approval was necessary for him to be paroled out to New York. (Dkt. No.1 at 8). Based
on a liberal reading of his Petition, Petitioner is seeking a transfer to New York pursuant to the
Interstate Compact, which sets forth guidelines on how to handle the transfer of adult offenders
from one state to another. Petitioner, however, indicated in his Petition that he did not pursue the
available procedures in the prisoner grievance system and did not appeal any decision to the
South Carolina Administrative Law Court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, or the South
Carolina Supreme Court. (Id. at 6-7). Petitioner provides no explanation for his failure to
exhaust these remedies. Before a state prisoner can seek federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, he must first exhaust any state court remedies that may be available. 0 'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999) (noting state prisoner must give the state courts an
opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas
corpus petition); Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973)
(exhaustion required under § 2241).
Recommendation and dismisses Petitioner's Petition without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance ofa certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.
AN~O ORD.. ERED.
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
February l /,2012
Charleston, 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?