Freeman v. Hingle et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ORDERED that Respondents motion for summary judgment 36 is GRANTED and the Petitioners Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, and the petition dismissed with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/08/2011. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Warden Evans Correctional Institution,
C.A. No.: 4:11-cv-00243-RBH
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, 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 Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, and the petition dismissed with
prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
November 8, 2011
The court does note that Petitioner has filed a letter since the Magistrate Judge issued his R & R
recommending dismissal of the § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust. However, upon review, nowhere in
that [Docket Entry 45] letter does Petitioner object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding
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?