Thompson v. Warden

Filing 10

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 07/26/2017.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Darnell Thompson, #16377-171,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, S.P.C. Williamsburg,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 1:17-cv-1591-PMD-SVH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’ report and
recommendation (“R & R”). She recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner Darnell Thompson’s
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (ECF No. 6). Thompson has filed objections to the R & R (ECF No. 8).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The R & R has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court must conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R & R to which a timely, specific objection is made, and the Court
may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in whole or
in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is taken as the party’s agreement
with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Absent a
timely, specific objection—or as to those portions of the R & R to which no specific objection is
made—this Court “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

DISCUSSION
Thompson seeks relief from a prison sentence imposed on him pursuant to the Armed
Career Criminal Act. The Magistrate Judge determined Thompson’s petition should be summarily
dismissed, without prejudice, because his claim is not cognizable under § 2241 and the “savings
clause” in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) does not allow him to bring his claim under § 2241.
Thompson challenges the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the savings clause does
not apply. However, none of the three opinions Thompson cites demonstrates any errors in her
analysis. Thompson’s objections are thus overruled. The Court finds the R & R well-reasoned
and therefore adopts it as the Court’s opinion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Thompson’s objections are
overruled, that the R & R is ADOPTED, and that Thompson’s petition is therefore DISMISSED
without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 26, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2