Sanchez-Partida v. Dunbar et al
Filing
16
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION #11 . The Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judges Report (ECF No. 11) and hereby dismisses this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/22/2023..(kric, )
6:23-cv-01219-BHH
Date Filed 05/22/23
Entry Number 16
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mario Alberto Sanchez-Partida,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden Dunbar,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________)
Civil Action No. 6:23-1219-BHH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mario Alberto Sanchez-Partida’s
(“Petitioner”) pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for initial review.
On May 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald filed a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss
this § 2241 petition without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without requiring
Respondent to file a response based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his available
administrative remedies. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Petitioner of his
right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a
copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
6:23-cv-01219-BHH
Date Filed 05/22/23
Entry Number 16
Page 2 of 2
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this § 2241 petition is subject to summary dismissal based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies.
Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF
No. 11) and hereby dismisses this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 22, 2023
Charleston, South Carolina
2
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?