Ponder v. South Carolina

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing the petition with prejudice and without requiring a response from respondent, for 11 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on September 17, 2012. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Bobby Ponder, #259096,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden, Tyger River Correctional
Institution,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 3:12-1444-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner, Bobby Ponder (“Petitioner”), is an inmate at the South Carolina Department
of Corrections serving a sentence of forty years imprisonment for multiple charges of armed
robbery and receiving stolen goods. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of
the United States. 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).

1

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 note).
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 the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this case be dismissed with
prejudice as successive and without requiring a response from the Respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 17, 2012

2