Workman v. State of South Carolina et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 The Court DISMISSES Petitioners § 2241 petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/10/2018. (kric, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Olandio Ray Workman,
Director of the Greenville County )
Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-03046-RBH
Petitioner Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. The matter is before the
Court for consideration of Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald.1 See ECF Nos. 11 & 14. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without requiring
Respondent to file a return. R & R at p. 6.
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court must conduct a
de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the
matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report
to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when
a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error
in the [M]agistrate [Judge]’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for
clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Petitioner is a state detainee awaiting trial on five criminal charges, see R & R at p. 3, and he
seeks habeas relief in the form of “be[ing] given a PR [personal recognizance] bond and set free.” ECF
No. 1 at p. 9. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Petitioner’s § 2241 petition
based on Younger3 abstention.4 See R & R at pp. 4–6. Initially, the Court notes Petitioner does not
appear to specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommended application of the Younger
abstention doctrine. See Diamond & Camby, supra (recognizing that in the absence of a specific
objection, the district court need only review the record for clear error). Regardless, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that Younger abstention is appropriate because (1) Petitioner is involved in
The R & R thoroughly summarizes the factual and procedural background of this case, as well as the
applicable legal standards.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The Magistrate Judge also correctly noted Petitioner’s claims alleging violations of his civil rights are not
appropriate for a § 2241 petition. R & R at p. 6 n.2; see Rodriguez v. Ratledge, __ F. App’x __, __, 2017 WL
5899931, at *3 (4th Cir. Nov. 29, 2017) (explaining “courts have generally held that § 2241 petitions are not” the
appropriate mechanism for bringing “civil rights actions” or “ challeng[ing] conditions of confinement”).
ongoing state criminal proceedings (2) that implicate important state interests, and because (3)
Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise his federal claims in the state proceedings. See generally
Robinson v. Thomas, 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir. 2017) (setting forth the three Younger criteria in the
context of a § 2241 petition). Moreover, Petitioner has not made a showing of “extraordinary
circumstances” justifying federal interference with the state proceedings. See Robinson, 855 F.3d at
286 (“A federal court may disregard Younger’s mandate to abstain from interfering with ongoing state
proceedings only where ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exist that present the possibility of irreparable
harm.”). Finally, the Court notes Petitioner has previously filed a § 2241 petition, which the Court
dismissed for similar reasons.
See Workman v. Dir. of the Greenville Cty. Det. Ctr., No.
6:17-cv-00767-RBH, 2017 WL 2687894 (D.S.C. June 22, 2017) (dismissed based on Younger
abstention), appeal dismissed, 704 F. App’x 273 (4th Cir. 2017). The Court will dismiss Petitioner’s
instant § 2241 petition.
Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85.
In this case, the Court concludes Petitioner has not made the requisite showing of “the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 11]. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without
prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. The Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
April 10, 2018
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?