Quick v. Drew
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 12 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 7/23/2012. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Warden Ms. D. Drew,
C/A No.: 5:11-cv-02059-GRA-KDW
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Walter Quick’s pro se
request for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On November 9,
2011, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment, and on November 14, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Bristow
Marchant issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), advising Petitioner of his obligation to respond to the motion for summary
judgment. The Petitioner filed a “Response to Motion to Dismiss” on January 3,
2012, and Respondent filed a timely Reply.
Subsequently, United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) on June 25, 2012, and made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C. The magistrate
judge recommends that the Court grant the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment.
Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Page 1 of 3
Petitioner was charged with possession of intoxicants at FCI-Bennettsville, and
ultimately sanctioned by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer. Petitioner claims that his
constitutional rights were denied because prison staff suppressed exculpatory
witness statements and denied him the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence
in his defense during the disciplinary hearings. The magistrate now recommends
dismissing the petition with prejudice after concluding that Petitioner received all the
process due as required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
Petitioner brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may
also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time for filing such objections has lapsed. In the absence
Page 2 of 3
of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198 (4th. Cir. 1983).
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law.
Court finds that Respondent has shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED with
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 23 , 2012
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date
of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.
Page 3 of 3
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?