Ford v. Warden

Filing 19

ORDER declining to adopt 15 Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Respondent's motion for summary judgment to Petitioner. Petitioner is directed to respond to Petitioner's motion for summary judgment by October 26, 2016. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/21/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUREICEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Glenn Ford,
Petitioner,

v.
Warden of FCI-Edgefield,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Z8IL SE? 22 A q: 05
Civil Action No.:

1:16-smik~&MP

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROUNA

Cl-UUILESTOH, S~

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 15). For the reasons below, the Court declines to adopt the R & R as
the order of the court.
On May 12, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No.
1). Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on July 5, 2016 (Dkt. No. 10), and the
Magistrate Judge entered a Roseboro order directing the Petitioner to file his response within 34
days (Dkt. No. 11). Petitioner failed to respond within the allotted time, and the Magistrate
Judge issued a second order directing Petitioner to respond by August 25,2016, or risk dismissal
for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 13). Petitioner failed to respond by August 25, and on August
26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R recommending that this court dismisses the
petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 15). On September 19, this Court
received a "Motion for Reconsideration" from Petitioner (Dkt. No. 18), in which he claimed that
the first document he received from the Court was the R & R recommending that his petition be
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the 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 R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." ld.
Petitioner's September 19 filing states that he is "in no way re-arguing the merits of his
petition," and requests a production of the documents he has not received. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2).
For good cause shown, the Court declines to adopt the R & R and recommits the matter to the
Magistrate Judge. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Respondent's motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 10) to Petitioner. Petitioner is directed to respond to Petitioner's motion for
summary judgment by October 26,2016.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

rgel
United States Dis ict Court Judge
September 2./ ,2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2