Blackwell v. Leath Correctional Insititution

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ACCEPTS the 27 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 12 Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and 24 Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is DENIED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/6/2017. Modified on 11/7/2017 to delete attachment filed in error. (gpre, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Nearin Blackwell, a/k/a Nearim Grace
Blackwell,

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, Leath Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-03947-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 27), filed on September 8, 2017, recommending that the
court should grant Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) and deny
Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss [her Habeas Petition] Without Prejudice (ECF No. 24).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which 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
to which specific objections are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 27-1.)
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme
Court has authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule
conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate's
recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on
which further review is desired.’”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 27). Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 12) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (ECF No. 24) is
DENIED. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
November 6, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina