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, )

Download PDF
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?