Walker v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the 12 Report and Petitioner's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/23/2018. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Darrell J. Walker,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Sheriff Al Cannon,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A No. 5:17-3201-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner Darrell J. Walker, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Petitioner’s petition dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and without requiring Respondent to file a return. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 12 at 6). However, Petitioner has
not filed objections, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976) In the absence of
objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. 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

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, DSC, this matter was
initially referred to a magistrate judge.
1

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).
Petitioner is detained at the Charleston County Detention Center awaiting trial on state
criminal charges. He filed a one-page habeas petition seeking a personal recognizance bond or a
bond reduction. (ECF No. 1). He filed an amendment to his Petition, indicating the he has been
prevented from seeking habeas relief before the South Carolina Supreme Court because he is
indigent and there is a $150.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 6). He asks this court to use its “mandate
power” to order the State of South Carolina to hold a bond hearing. Id. at 1. The magistrate judge
determined that this court cannot grant the relief Petitioner requests, and recommended that the court
summarily dismiss the petition. (Report at 4-5). Petitioner has not filed any objections. The court
has reviewed the Report and finds no clear error.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Report and Petitioner’s petition
is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 23, 2018
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.

2