Turner v. Buchanan et al

Filing 16

ORDER accepting the 13 Report and Recommendation and summarily dismissing the Petition without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 5/10/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Lexie Turner,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Matthew C. Buchanan and S.C.
)
Department of Probation, Parole, and
)
Pardon Services,
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-02306-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court pursuant to Petitioner Lexie Turner’s pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1-2.) Petitioner filed the petition alleging the
South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (“SCDPPPS”) violated his
constitutional rights when it failed to enclose a notice of appeal with its final decision denying
Petitioner parole eligibility. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2, 9.) Petitioner states he appealed SCDPPPS’s
decision, and his appeal is still pending.

(Id. at 8.)

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation recommends that the court should summarily dismiss the petition without
prejudice because Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies. (ECF No. 13 at 4.) The
Report and Recommendation, filed on September 15, 2017, sets forth the relevant facts, which this
court incorporates herein without a recitation. (ECF No. 13.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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. 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
1

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 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 13 at 5.) However, neither party filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation within the prescribed time limits.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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
and Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) and
incorporates it herein.

Therefore, the court summarily DISMISSES, without prejudice,

Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 1-2.)

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 10, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3