Eade v. Cannon

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendations; This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/27/2012. (mbro, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Randall Joseph Eade,
Petitioner,
vs.
Sheriff Al Cannon,
Respondent.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 6:12-854-JFA-KFM

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, Randall Joseph Eade, is a pretrial detainee at the Charleston
County Detention Center. He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 contending that
the defendant violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), that he is being
illegally detained, and that his right to a speedy trial is being violated.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the § 2241 petition should be dismissed because the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted the formal procedures under IADA.
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 31, 2012. However, the
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. 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. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

petitioner did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The copy of the Report mailed to the petitioner was returned to
the Clerk of Court on June 11, 2012 marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender.”
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

June 27, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

2