Gary v. Warden SPC Edgefield
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R in this case. Noting that Petitioner filed no objections, the R&R, ECF No. 27 , is hereby ACCEPTED. Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Respondent's motion for summary judgment 21 is hereby GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 08/02/2017. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Case No. 4:16-cv-01201-TLW
Warden SPC Edgefield,
Petitioner Kareem Gary, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) filed on March 1, 2017, by Magistrate Judge Rogers, to whom this case
was assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), DSC. ECF No. 27. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Respondent’s
motion for summary judgment be granted. Id. Objections to the R&R were due March 15, 2017,
and Petitioner has not filed objections. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed the R&R in
this case. Noting that Petitioner filed no objections, the R&R, ECF No. 27, is hereby ACCEPTED.
Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 2, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?