Harris v. Bragg

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, 20 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/20/2019. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Melvin Harris,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
Warden M. Travis Bragg,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-0438-TLW
ORDER

Petitioner Melvin Harris brought this action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking
habeas relief. ECF No. 1. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on May 10, 2018. ECF No. 13. On
May 11, 2018, Petitioner was advised by Court Order of the consequences if he failed to respond
to the motion. ECF No. 14. Further, Petitioner was advised that if he missed deadlines as a result
of his failure to comply with the Order, this action was subject to dismissal. Id. The Court filed an
Order on June 18, 2018, giving Petitioner through July 9, 2018, to respond. ECF No. 16. However,
Petitioner did not respond.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation,
filed on July 13, 2018, by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case
was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.). ECF No. 20. The Report recommends that this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41. Id. The deadline to object to the Report was July 27, 2018. However, Petitioner did not
file objections to the Report or otherwise respond.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and relevant filings. The Court notes that
Petitioner has not filed anything in this case since the Petition, filed on February 15, 2018. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report, ECF No. 20, is ACCEPTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Senior United States District Judge
March 20, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina