Pierce v. Reynolds

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition, (ECF No. 1 ), be DISMISSED without issuance and service of process, and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/9/2016.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Thomas Giniski Pierce, # 201290,

)
)
Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-03254-JMC
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Cecilia Reynolds, Warden,
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Petitioner Thomas Giniski Pierce (“Petitioner”) filed this pro se Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) against Cecilia Reynolds, Warden (“Respondent”), challenging his
conviction and the result of his state collateral proceedings. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before
the court for review of the United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 9), filed on November 9, 2016, recommending the court
dismiss Petitioner’s Petition (ECF No. 1) without service of process and without requiring
Respondent to file a return. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without
recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is only
a recommendation to this court, and 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 to which specific objections are made. Id. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in

1 

whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were advised of their right to file an objection to the Report by December 1,
2016. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner filed no objections.
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 not clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendations.’” 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). 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain any clear error.
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 9.) It is
therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition, (ECF No. 1), be DISMISSED without issuance
and service of process, and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
December 9, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
2