Kalu v. Dunbar

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 35 , and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26 , is GRANTED, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 1/18/2023. (prou, )

5:22-cv-01184-SAL

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 39

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
John Oscar Kalu,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden R. S. Dunbar,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-1184-SAL
Order

This matter is before the court for review of the December 2, 2022 Report and
Recommendation (Report) of United States Magistrate Judge Kamani D. West, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule(B)(2)(b) (D.S.C.) [ECF No. 35.] In her
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends this court grant Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 26, deny the petition of writ of habeas corpus, and dismiss the petition without
prejudice. [ECF No. 35 at 6.] Attached to the Report was a Notice of Right to File Objection,
which informed the parties “[s]pecific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days
of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation.” Objections were due December 16,
2022. As of the date of this Order, an additional thirty-one days have passed since the deadline for
filing objections. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has long since
passed.
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 this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

5:22-cv-01184-SAL

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 39

Page 2 of 2

In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and 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) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in
accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 35,
and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and the
petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 18, 2023
Florence, South Carolina

/s/Sherri A. Lydon
Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge