Lance v. Wright et al

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 . The habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/17/2015. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Joshua Walter Lance,
Petitioner,
v.
Director Major Urch, Spartanburg County
Detention Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:15-1026-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner Joshua Walter Lance, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition seeking habeas
corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court summarily dismiss Petitioner’s
Petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. (ECF
No. 9). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 9 at 6.)
However, Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report 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). In the absence of
objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, DSC, this matter was initially referred to
a magistrate judge.

1

After a thorough review of the applicable law, the record in this case, and the Report, the
court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by
reference. Thus, the habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring
Respondent to file an answer or return.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas relief
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district
court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court finds that the petitioner has failed
to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

April 17, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

2