Chisena v. Mansukani et al

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 16 ) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 07/12/2017. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dale Chisena, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Warden Mansukani, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 5:17-753-BHH ORDER Petitioner Dale Chisena (“Petitioner”), a federal prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed this habeas relief action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) D.S.C. On May 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (Id. at 6.) On June 12, 2017, a Text Order (ECF No. 22) was entered granting Petitioner’s motion for additional time to file objections (ECF No. 21). Petitioner has filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 10, 2017. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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”) (citation omitted). After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 16) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge July 12, 2017 Greenville South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. -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?