Jordan v. Attorney General for South Carolina et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks dismissing petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a return. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 12/13/11.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Charles Jordan,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Attorney General for South Carolina; Dept. )
of Mental Health; The State,
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 2:11-2736-CMC-BHH

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se application for writ of habeas corpus,
filed in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On November 2, 2011, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed without prejudice and without
requiring a response from Respondents. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures
and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do
so. Petitioner has filed no objections to the Report and the time for doing so has expired.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that this matter
should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates by reference
the Report.
The petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a
return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
December 13, 2011

2