Manning v. Cartledge

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22 ), Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18 ) is GRANTED and this Petition (ECF No. 1 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 07/09/2015. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Joshua Dawn Manning,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Leroy Cartledge, Warden McCormick
)
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-04721-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on June 12, 2015 (ECF No. 22), recommending
that Petitioner Joshua Dawn Manning’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to
respond to Respondent Leroy Cartledge’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17, 18), or
alternatively dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which 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 to which specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 22-1.)
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.

1

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s
note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22), Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and this Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
July 9, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2