Grimes v. Joyner

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and dismisses the petition without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file an answer or return. A certificate of Aappealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/12/2017.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Larry Anthony Grimes, #23477-004,

C/A No. 8:17-849-JFA

Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden Hector Joyner,

Respondent.
Larry Anthony Grimes (“Grimes”) filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at FCI-Estill, in Estill, South Carolina. Grimes
requests that this court send him to Florida for a disposition in a federal case. (ECF No. 1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was
referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
According to the rules governing habeas corpus petitions in the United States District
Courts, the Magistrate Judge thoroughly examined Grimes’ petition to determine if, when
liberally construed, “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” SECT 2254 Rule 4; see also SECT 2254
Rule 1(b) (a district court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed pursuant to
§2254).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should dismiss the petition without

1

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)(g) (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

prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file an answer or return. (ECF No. 11). The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court
incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Grimes was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on May 8, 2017. However, Grimes failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an
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, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation, and dismisses the petition without prejudice and without requiring the
Respondent to file an answer or return.
Further, because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 12, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

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).
2
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In the instant
matter, the court finds that the defendant has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”
2