Rosado v. Dunbar
Filing
26
ORDER adopting the 21 Report and Recommendation. Thus, Petitioner's Petition is dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Undersigned adopts the reco mmendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute, Respondent's motion for summary judgment need not be addressed and is dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 16 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2 Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 1/17/2023. (lbak)
1:22-cv-02034-JFA
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 26
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Andre Rosado, 80495-038,,
C/A No. 1:22-2034-JFA-SVH
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
R.S. Dunbar,
Respondent.
Petitioner Andre Rosado (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action
by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). Respondent
then filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) and Petitioner was advised of the
motion, along with the consequences if he failed to respond, via a Roseboro order. (ECF
No. 17). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.),
the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss this action because
Petitioner has failed to respond to the dispositive motion or otherwise prosecute his claims.
1
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
1
1:22-cv-02034-JFA
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 26
Page 2 of 3
(ECF No. 21). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on
this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on November 29, 2022. (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to
file objections by December 13, 2022. Id. However, Petitioner did not file any objections
or otherwise respond. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 21). Thus, Petitioner’s Petition is
dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Because the Undersigned adopts the recommendation to dismiss for failure to
prosecute, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment need not be addressed and is
dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 16).
2
1:22-cv-02034-JFA
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 26
Page 3 of 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because
the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 17, 2023
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).
3
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?