Mussehl v. State of South Carolina, The et al

Filing 7

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 . This Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5). Therefore, Petitioners Motion for TRO is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/3/2018. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

David Mussehl,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina,
)
State of California,
)
)
Respondents.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No.: 6:17-3309-JFA

ORDER

The Petitioner, David Mussehl (“Petitioner”), represented by counsel, moves this Court to
issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 2). Petitioner is challenging a purported
extradition order and moves this Court to “issue a TRO staying/barring extradition and/or
transport until such time as an emergency hearing may be [held] in this matter.” (ECF No. 2 p.
1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), (D.S.C.), this case
was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that the Petitioner’s Motion for a TRO should be
denied. (ECF No. 5 p. 4). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law
on this matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report, which was entered
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), (D.S.C.). 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

on the docket on December 8, 2017. (ECF No. 5). That deadline has now expired, and the
Petitioner failed to file an objection to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report and Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5). Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion for TRO is
hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 3, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2