Moore v. United States of America
Filing
17
ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, dismissing petition without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/18/11.(hhil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Gregory Moore a/k/a Gregory Lee Moore,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden, FCI Edgefield,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No.: 2:11-cv-02086-RBH
ORDER
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner
was a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Edgefield at the time he filed this action.1 This matter
is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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).
1
Petitioner has since submitted a Notice of Change of Address, [Docket Entry 10], which indicated that he
was no longer incarcerated at that institution.
1
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005)
stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the § 2241 Petition in the above-captioned case is dismissed without
prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
November 18, 2011
2
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?