Williams v. Pruitt et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 . The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process upon the respondent. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/11/2012. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Merlin LKent Williams,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Major Steven Pruitt,
)
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________________ )

C/A No.: 8:12-cv-01270-GRA-JDA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on June 11,
2012. Petitioner commenced this action on May 16, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Under established local procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge
Austin made a careful review of the pro se petition pursuant to the procedural
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that this
Court dismiss Petitioner’s petition without prejudice. This Court adopts the
magistrate’s recommendation in its entirety.
Petitioner is a state pre-trial detainee who has been charged with distribution
of crack cocaine and is awaiting trial in the Oconee County Court of General
Sessions. Petitioner alleges that he has not been provided counsel and also has not
been given a preliminary hearing. According to his petition, he submitted a written
request for a preliminary hearing and a pro se “motion to dismiss affidavit” the same

Page 1 of 3

day he was given a $10,000 surety bond on April 18, 2012. He claims the Oconee
County Clerk of Court filed it on April 24, 2012, and that it is still pending. Petitioner
alleges that his failure to receive a preliminary hearing is a denial of due process, and
asks that the charges against him be dropped. The magistrate now recommends
dismissing the petition without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
based on the principle that federal courts are not authorized to interfere with a State’s
pending criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances and that Petitioner
has not exhausted his available state-remedies.
Petitioner brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may
also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions."

Id.

The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and

Page 2 of 3

Recommendation, and the time for filing such objections has lapsed. In the absence
of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198 (4th. Cir. 1983).
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process upon the respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 11, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date
of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

Page 3 of 3