Capers v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 . The Petitioners § 2241 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without requiring the Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 12/19/2017. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Teon Capers,
Petitioner,
vs.
Director of the Charleston County
Detention Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 6:17-3208-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Teon Capers (“Capers”) seeks habeas
corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate
Judge McDonald recommends dismissing Capers’ § 2241 petition without requiring the
Respondent to file a return.
Capers filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (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. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
1

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).
Upon review, the court finds that Capers’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in
this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Capers’ § 2241 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without
requiring the Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 19, 2017

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

2