Howie v. Warden Federal Correctional Institution Estill South Carolina

Filing 10

ORDER accepting 5 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The Petition, ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 6/8/2017.(ssam, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Antonio Navarro Howie, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Warden, F.C.I. Estill, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) C/A No.: 2:16-cv-0675-TLW ORDER Petitioner Antonio Navarro Howie, proceeding pro se, filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his indictment, conviction, and sentence. ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on April 12, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. ECF No. 5. The deadline to file Objections to the Report was April 29, 2016. However, Petitioner failed to file objections. This case is now ripe for disposition. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings, and the applicable law and notes that Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report. After careful consideration, the Court accepts the detailed factual and legal analysis by the Magistrate Judge in the Report. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report, ECF No. 5, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 s/Terry L. Wooten____________ Chief United States District Judge June 8, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina 1 Unlike in a § 2254 or § 2255 proceeding, it is not necessary for a petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal an order dismissing a § 2241 petition. Sanders v. O’Brien, 376 F. App’x 306, 307 (4th Cir. 2010).

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?