Oxendine v. Warden, Evans Correctional Institution
Filing
12
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court finds no clear error and ADOPTS the Report, ECF No. 9. For the reasons discussed above and in the Report, Petitioner's § 2254 petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring the Warden to respond. Signed by Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 10/24/2024. (dgar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Steven Wayne Oxendine,
C/A No. 2:24-cv-3995-SAL
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden, Evans Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
Petitioner Steven Wayne Oxendine (“Petitioner”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner initiated this
action in July 2024 by filing a § 2254 petition challenging his ten-year prison sentence for assault
and battery of a high and aggravated nature. [ECF No. 1.] On July 30, 2024, Petitioner was
notified of the insufficiencies of his complaint and was afforded twenty-one days, plus three days
for mail time, to file an amended petition to cure the pleading deficiencies. [ECF No. 4.] Petitioner
was specifically told to update the Clerk of Court for any address changes to avoid case dismissal.
Id. However, the Petitioner’s order was returned as “undeliverable” on August 19, 2024, stating
Petitioner was no longer incarcerated at Evans Correctional Institution. See ECF No. 7. Petitioner
never notified the Clerk of Court of his address change, and it appears he has been released from
state custody. This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”)
of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending dismissal of Petitioner’s action without prejudice.
[ECF No. 9.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and
1
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired.
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 this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case, the
court finds no clear error and ADOPTS the Report, ECF No. 9. For the reasons discussed above
and in the Report, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
requiring the Warden to respond.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 24, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina
Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge
2
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?