Cutner v. Thompson

Filing 54

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 48 . The Petitioners Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 3/13/2013. (kric, ) Modified on 3/13/2013 to correct linkage (kric, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Lamont Cutner,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Interim Warden Fred Thompson,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 6:12-cv-02807-GRA-KFM

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter is before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin
F. McDonald’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) of the District of South Carolina, and filed on
February 13, 2013. Petitioner Lamont Cutner (“Petitioner”), a prisoner currently
incarcerated at Lee County Correctional Institution in Bishopville, South Carolina, brought
this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 28, 2012. ECF
No. 1. Petitioner filed a motion for default judgment on January 7, 2013, and the
Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s motion be denied. ECF Nos. 31 & 48.
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or
recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. “The failure to file objections
Page 1 of 2 

to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.” Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see Carter v.
Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Furthermore, in the absence
of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). In this case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
March 4, 2013. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent has filed objections to the Report, and
the time to object has passed.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that Magistrate Judge McDonald’s
Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 13 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2