Lockett v. Warden FCI Estill SC

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner's case without prejudice, and without requiring Respondent to file a return. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/13/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Gary Lockett, #87047-020,

C/A No. 2:16-2439-JFA-MGB

Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden, F.C.I.-Estill,

Respondent.
On or about June 21, 2016, Gary Lockett (“Petitioner”) filed this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 against Respondent. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. On November 15, 2016, service
of process was authorized; however, Respondent was directed not to answer because the petition
was subject to summary dismissal. ECF No. 10.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should summarily dismiss Petitioner’s
petition without prejudice, and without requiring Respondent to file a return. ECF No. 11. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts2 and standards of law on this matter, and this Court
incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Petitioner was advised of his right to
object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on November 15, 2016. ECF Nos. 11–12.

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
2
The facts provided in the background portion of the Report have been confirmed via Pacer. In addition,
this Court verified Petitioner’s initial petition is still pending via Pacer.
1

The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until December 2, 2016, to file objections; however, no
objections were filed. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections to the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law.3 Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 11) and summarily dismisses Petitioner’s case without prejudice, and
without requiring Respondent to file a return.
Further, because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3

The Court corrects inadvertent typographical errors on the third page of the Report to reflect the proper
citation for Castro v. United States as 124 S. Ct. 786 (2003) and on the fifth page of the Report to provide
the full citation for the second block quote as In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333–34 (4th Cir. 2000).
4
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural
rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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, 683–84 (4th Cir. 2001).
2