Rufus v. Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 13 Report and Recommendation as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 11/18/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SOCIAL SECURITY
)
ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 6:14-cv-03581-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Michael Alonza Rufus, an inmate at the Riverbend Correctional Facility in
Milledgeville, Georgia, filed this pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. (Doc. #13). On
October 14, 2014, this Court issued an Order granting Petitioner’s motion for an extension of
time to file objections to the Report and directing that Petitioner file his objections by November
13, 2014. (Doc. #19). Petitioner has filed no objections.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections
to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a

case, “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 recommendation.’”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it
accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #13). For the reasons articulated
by the Magistrate Judge, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Doc. #1).
Because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” the Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of
appealability as to the issues raised herein. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner is advised
that he may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
November 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina