Brown v. McFadden

Filing 52

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 39 Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's 32 Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/3/2015. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Javon Brown, # 272674, a/k/a Jovan )
T. Brown, a/k/a Jovon Brown,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Joseph McFadden, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 8:14-cv-1269-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this suit by filing a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 11, 2014. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On
January 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for default judgment. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 32.
Defendant timely filed a response in opposition on February 12, 2015. See Def.’s Resp., ECF No.
34. The matter is now before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin. See R & R, ECF No. 39. In her R & R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s motion for default judgment. See id.
at 1–2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 3, 2015

2