Bowers v. Myers
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing the writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and without requiring respondents to file an answer, for 17 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on January 10, 2012. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Director Ronaldo Myers, State of South
C.A. No.: 3:11-2017-RBH
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner
was a pretrial detainee at the time he filed this action. This matter is before the court for
review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R.
McCrorey, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation 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 and Recommendation 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 with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 In the absence
of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005)
stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without
prejudice and without requiring the Respondents to file an answer.
Petitioner has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. As a matter of fact,
the copy of the Report and Recommendation that the court attempted to mail to Petitioner was returned
undelivered, with its envelope marked “no longer at this address[;] return to sender.” See [Docket Entry 20].
In addition, while the court received what is docketed as objections on December 27, 2011, the court notes,
upon review, that Petitioner indicated in that document that he had been granted the relief he sought from
the state court. Specifically, Petitioner stated that “on 12-16-2011 the [petitioner] did go before the court of
magistrates in the county of Richland . . . [and] the court imposed the maximum sentence allowable by law,
30, (thirty days) time served.” [Docket Entry 19]. Petitioner further notified the court that “if this satisf[ied]
the United States District Court as pertains to the [petitioner’s] writ of habeas corpus it [was] agreeable to
the [petitioner] also.” Id. Accordingly, the court concludes that Petitioner has not objected to the Report
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
January 10, 2012
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?