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, )

Download PDF
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

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?