Adams v. Reynolds

Filing 31

ORDER adopting 28 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 7/25/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Willie Adams, #338357,
Petitioner,
vs.
Ceicilia Reynolds, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 1:16-3946-HMH-SVH

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, 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. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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 must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face

1

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It is
further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
July 25, 2017

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

2