Bryan v. McFadden

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 9 ) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is summarily DISMISSED without pr ejudice and without issuance and service of process. Petitioner's motions to amend/correct the petition (ECF No. 12 ) and for leave to file a supplemental writ and an affidavit (ECF No. 14 ) are DENIED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/31/2014. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISCTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
T. Terell Bryan,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden McFadden,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:14-3627

OPINION & ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a state prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., all pre-trial
proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge. This case is now before the court on the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court
dismiss his petition for a writ for habeas corpus without prejudice. Petitioner filed timely
objections (ECF No. 11), along with a motion to amend/correct his petition (ECF No. 12) and a
motion for leave to file a supplemental writ and an affidavit (ECF No. 14). Accordingly, this
matter is now ripe for review.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.
Petitioner’s objections fail to address any specific, dispositive portion of the Report. The
objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report or merely restate

Petitioner’s claims. The court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Petitioner’s objections
and finds no reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition.
In his motion to amend his petition, Petitioner states that he could be released earlier if
the court enforced his contract. (ECF No. 12, p. 1). He asserts that he could have a job and
work, which would allow him to receive earned work credit and earned education credit. (ECF
No. 12, p. 1). As discussed by the magistrate judge, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not
the proper avenue to pursue his alleged breach of contract claim. (ECF No. 9, p. 4). In his
motion for leave to file a supplemental writ and an affidavit, Petitioner asserts that § 1983 is not
the proper remedy for his claims. (ECF No. 14, p. 1). The court does not express an opinion as
to whether § 1983 is the proper method for Petitioner to pursue his claim; instead the court
determines that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not the proper way for an inmate to enforce
an alleged contract he entered into with security guards.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 9) and
incorporates it herein.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily

DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

Petitioner’s

motions to amend/correct the petition (ECF No. 12) and for leave to file a supplemental writ and
an affidavit (ECF No. 14) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
October 31, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.