Lytle v. Samuels et al

Filing 66

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 62 ) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/7/2017. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OPRANGEBURG DIVISION

Curtis Jerome Lytle,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden FCI-Bennettsville,,
Respondent.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:16-2277-TMC-KDW

ORDER

Petitioner Curtis Jerome Lytle, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a
Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 53) be denied. (ECF No. 62).1 No objections to the Report have been filed
and the time for doing so has now run.
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 the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial
proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge.

specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the
district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 62) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) is DENIED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
November 7, 2017

2

The court notes that the Magistrate Judge treated the motion as one for summary judgment
because matters outside of the pleadings were considered. (Report at 16).