Payne v. Carrol et al
ORDER accepting 9 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 7/19/2017.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
C/A No.: 2:17-cv-1296-TLW
Petitioner Demontary Payne, proceeding pro se, filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 challenging his pretrial detainment at the Barnwell County Detention Center. ECF No. 1.
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed on June 7, 2017, 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. 9. The deadline to file Objections to the Report was June 21,
2017. 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
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. 9, 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
July 19, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?