Geiger v. Director, Lexington County Det Center
Filing
32
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 29 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. It is ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/5/2015.(ssam, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie Geiger, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
Director, Lexington County Detention
Center,
Respondent.
______________________________
) Civil Action No.: 2:14-3733-BHH
)
)
) ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
The petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking habeas
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for a Report and Recommendation.
On February 4, 2015, the respondent filed a letter from M. Richbourg Roberson, General
Counsel for the Office of the Sheriff of Lexington County. (ECF No. 21.) Since the
petitioner is pro se in this matter, the Court entered an order on February 10, 2015, giving
the petitioner through March 12, 2015, to file a response to the respondent’s letter, asking
for him to “show cause why his § 2241 petition should not be dismissed as moot.” (ECF
No. 24.) The Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action
would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The petitioner failed to file a
response. Thus, Magistrate Judge Baker recommended that this action be dismissed for
lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders. (ECF No. 29.)
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, 96 S.Ct. 549,
46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any
portion of the Report and Recommendation 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 and
Recommendation 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).
The Magistrate Judge advised the petitioner of his right to file specific objections to
the Report. (ECF No. 29 at 3.) On May 1. 2015, the envelope that was mailed to the
Lexington County Detention Center containing the petitioner's copy of the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 29) was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked "Return to
Sender, Attempted -not known, Unable to Forward." (ECF No. 31.) A review of the docket
reflects that the petitioner was sent mail at multiple institutions based on information
obtained from the SCDC Inmate locator. (ECF Nos. 26, 27, 28, 30.) The petitioner was
even mailed a notice of change address form on February 5, 2015, but a change of
address was never received from the petitioner. (ECF No. 23.) The petitioner was advised
by order filed September 24, 2014, of his responsibility to notify the Court in writing if his
address changed and that his case could be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court's
order. (ECF No. 5 at 2.)
After a thorough review of the record of this matter, the
applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
29) by reference into this order.
It is therefore ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of
prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders, 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).
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c) (2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c) (3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong
and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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). In this case, the legal standard for
the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of
appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
Greenville South Carolina
May 5, 2015
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?