Kasyjanski v. Squirewell
Filing
23
ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation re ECF No. 17 and dismissing this action without prejudice, without leave for further amendment and without requiring the respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 10/23/2024. (cpri)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Keith Edward Kasyjanski,
C/A No. 1:24-cv-4216-JFA
Petitioner,
vs.
ORDER
Harriet Squirewell,
Respondent.
Plaintiff Keith Edward Kasyjanski (Petitioner), a self-represented, former pretrial
detainee1, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Harriet Squirewell
(Respondent). 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 the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
On July 30, 2024, petitioner filed his petition concerning the validity of his
detainment at Fairfield County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1). On August 19, 2024, the
Magistrate Judge issued a proper form order, identifying several deficiencies in the
petition. (ECF No. 8). The proper form order directed Petitioner to correct the deficiencies
by September 9, 2024, and warned Petitioner that failing to do so may result in dismissal
of his case. (ECF No. 8). Petitioner failed to correct the deficiencies. Subsequently, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), concluding that this
Court should dismiss Petitioner’s case because (1) the petition is moot; (2) the petition
1
When Petitioner filed his Petition, he was a pretrial detainee at Fairfield County Detention Center.
Plaintiff has since been discharged pursuant to a state court order specifying methods and
conditions of release. (ECF No 16).
Page 1 of 3
erroneously requests the Court to interfere with state criminal proceedings; and (3)
Petitioner failed to prosecute his case. (ECF No. 17, pgs. 5-8). The Magistrate Judge
advised Petitioner of his right to object to the Report by October 4, 2024. (ECF No. 17, pg.
10). However, Petitioner did not file objections and the time to do so has expired.
Therefore, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff failed to raise any objections to the Report and therefore this Court
is not required to explain its decision to adopt the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s
petition is subject to dismissal.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 17). Consequently, this action is dismissed without leave for further amendment
and without requiring the respondent to file a return.
Page 2 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 23, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District
Page 3 of 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?