Rivers v. Warden of Lieber Corrections

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation; granting Repondent's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing this Petition with prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/4/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Javon Rivers, Sr., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Warden of Lieber Correctional ) Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-03229-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Shiva H. Hodges’ Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on April 11, 2017 (ECF No. 25), recommending that Petitioner Javon Rivers, Sr.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to respond to Respondent Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution’s (“Respondent”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). (ECF No. 14). The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1971). This court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Petitioner was advised of the right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15). However, Petitioner never filed an objection to the Report. 1   In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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 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). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and it does not contain clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), GRANTS Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) and DISMISSES this Petition (ECF No. 1) with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge May 4, 2017 Columbia, 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?