Ford v. Warden

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendation; granting Respondent's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing petition with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/27/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Q@M~fD DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION roll FEB Glenn Ford, #04010-000, Petitioner, v. Warden, FCI Edgefield, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OfFICE 21 P 12: 28 ORDER AND OPINION ) Glenn Ford ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 12,2016. (Dkt. No.1.) Petitioner seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the 2001 decision of the United States Parole Commission ("USPC") to rescind his parole. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R") of the Magistrate Judge to grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and deny the habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 24.) No objections to the R & R have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R & R to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate absent objection by any party. 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). This Court's review of the record indicates that the R & R accurately analyzes the facts of this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate's R & R as the Order of this Court. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the habeas petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. -1­ AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard Mark Ge el United States District Court Judge February 27, 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -2­

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?