Powers v. Thomas
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. It is therefore ORDERED that Powers' § 2241 petition, docket number 1 , is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 3/31/2016.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Grady William Powers,
Petitioner,
vs.
Linda Thomas, Warden FCI Edgefield,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 2:15-4473-HMH-MGB
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Grady William Powers (“Powers”), a
federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Magistrate Judge Baker recommends dismissing the petition without prejudice
and without requiring the Respondent to file a return, because Powers’ “petition pursuant to
§ 2241 is not the proper vehicle for the instant claim.” (Report & Recommendation 4, ECF No.
10.)
Powers filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 28, 2016.2
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (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. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
1
objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific 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).
Upon review, the court finds that many of Powers’ objections are non-specific, unrelated
to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely
restate his claims. However, the court was able to glean one specific objection. Powers objects
that the magistrate judge’s report is unauthorized, because he “did not consent to a magistrate
interfering with his civil case.” (Objections 1, ECF No. 16.)
Powers argues the magistrate judge did not have the authority to issue a Report and
Recommendation because his consent is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Id. at 4, ECF
No. 16.) In Samuel v. Ozmint, No. 3:07-CV-178-PMD, 2008 WL 512736, at *3-4 (D.S.C.
Feb. 25, 2008) (unpublished), the court rejected this same objection under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(1), holding that the petitioner’s consent in a § 2241 petition was not required for the
magistrate judge’s involvement. Id. at 3. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) only “requires the parties’
consent for a Magistrate Judge to conduct proceedings in a non-jury or jury civil matter and
order the entry of judgment in a case.” Id. at 4. In contrast, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) applies in
this case, which permits a judge to
designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings,
and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted
in [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)], of applications for posttrial relief made by
2
individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging
conditions of confinement.
Since the petition Powers filed clearly falls within the purview of § 636(b)(1)(B), his consent
was not necessary and, contrary to his objection, the magistrate judge possessed the authority to
issue her Report and Recommendation. Samuel, 2008 WL 512736, at *4; see also Rice v.
Lamanna, 451 F. Supp. 2d 755, 759 (D.S.C. 2006), aff’d, No. 06-7011, 2006 WL 2527747, at *1
(4th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006) (unpublished).
Based on the foregoing, Powers’ objection is without merit, and the court adopts the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Powers’ § 2241 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without
prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
March 31, 2016
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty
(60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
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?