Merritt v. 13th Judicial Circuit Greenville County
Filing
20
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report, ECF No. 18 , is ACCEPTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 01/17/2023. (dsto, )
4:22-cv-02881-TLW
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 20
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tony Demetrius Merritt, #307281,
Case No. 4:22-cv-2881-TLW
PETITIONER
v.
Order
Administrator, Greenville County
Detention Center,
RESPONDENT
Petitioner Tony Demetrius Merritt (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1.
Petitioner is a state pretrial detainee who has been charged with murder and
possession of a weapon during a violent crime. ECF No. 18 at 2. His requested relief
is the dismissal of all charges and his release. ECF No. 1.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was
assigned, the Honorable Thomas R. Rogers, III. ECF No. 18. In the Report, the
magistrate judge recommends that the petition be dismissed based on the principle
of federal abstention during the course of an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Id. at
3 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44 (1971)). Petitioner did not file
objections to the Report. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for decision.
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,
Page 1 of 2
4:22-cv-02881-TLW
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 20
Page 2 of 2
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 18, is ACCEPTED. This action is hereby
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
January 17, 2023
Columbia, South Carolina
Page 2 of 2
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?