Robinson v. Mosley

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court accepts the detailed factual and legal analysis by the Magistrate Judge in the Report. Accordingly, the Report, ECF No. 13 , is ACCEPTED. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Petition, ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED with prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 07/25/2017. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Damien T. Robinson,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bonita Mosley,
)
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No.: 4:17-cv-1305-TLW

ORDER

Petitioner Damien T. Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed this petition seeking habeas relief
ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on June 29, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that this Court dismiss the petition. ECF No. 13. The deadline to file Objections to
the Report was July 13, 2017. However, Petitioner failed to file objections. This case is now ripe
for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the
Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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

& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings,
and the applicable law, and notes that Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report. After careful
consideration, the Court accepts the detailed factual and legal analysis by the Magistrate Judge in
the Report. Accordingly, the Report, ECF No. 13, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons stated in the
Report, the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice and without requiring Respondent
to file a return.
To the extent that this Petition may be construed to request relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, 1 the Court has reviewed this Petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of
appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
July 25, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

1

Unlike in a § 2254 or § 2255 proceeding, it is not necessary for a petitioner to obtain a certificate of
appealability to appeal an order dismissing a § 2241 petition. Sanders v. O’Brien, 376 F. App’x 306, 307
(4th Cir. 2010).