Outlaw v. Drew

Filing 20

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, dismissing case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/18/13.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Corey Outlaw,
Petitioner,
v.
Darlene Drew,
Respondent.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 2:12-2250-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner, Corey Outlaw, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a
Magistrate Judge. On December 28, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks,
issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending the action be
dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this court’s orders. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the
court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report herein without a recitation.
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 objections are 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (Dkt. No. 18 at
2). However, Petitioner filed no objections to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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 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 the record in this case, the court
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919,
920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 18, 2013

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.