Brown v. Mora

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation. The Petitioner's § 2241 habeas corpus petition is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/26/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Casper Franklin Brown,
Petitioner,
vs.
S. Mora, Warden,
Respondent.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:13-1815-MGL-SVH

ORDER
Petitioner Casper Franklin Brown, (“Petitioner”), brought this civil action, pro se, as a
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 2, 2013. (Doc. # 1).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed on July 25, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to
whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the petition be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). (Doc. # 9). Objections to the Report were due on August 12, 2013.
Petitioner has filed no Objections to the Report.1
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,

1

Petitioner did file a Notice of Appeal on August 8, 2013 following the issuance of the Report but prior to any
Order entered by this Court. (Doc. # 11). Petitioner’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit on November 12, 2013 on grounds of failure to prosecute. (Doc. # 21). Petitioner has never
registered any specific objection to the analysis set out by the Magistrate Judge in any document filed with this
Court. Indeed, even Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was non-specific as to the grounds of the appeal.

this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 9). The Petitioner’s § 2241
habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings which can be applied to Section 2241 actions through Rule 1(b). The
Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues
raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 26, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

__s/Mary G. Lewis______
United States District Judge