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, )

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-