Hart v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judges Report 15 and dismisses this action for lack of jurisdiction without requiring Respondent to filea return. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/15/20. (rweb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Dennis T. Hart,

)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
)
Warden of Edgefield Federal Correctional
)
Institution,
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________

Civil Action No.: 8:20-2402-BHH

ORDER

Dennis T. Hart (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
initial review.
On August 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin filed a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court
summarily dismiss the § 2241 petition without requiring Respondent to file a return based
on the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Petitioner
of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with
a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.1
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 determination only of those portions of the Report to

1

On August 17, 2020, the Court received a letter from Petitioner inquiring as to the status of this case,
but the letter is dated August 8, prior to the Magistrate Judge’s Report being mailed to Petitioner.

which specific objections are 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
the instant § 2241 petition should be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on
Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the elements of In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF
No. 15) and dismisses this action for lack of jurisdiction without requiring Respondent to file
a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 15, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina
******
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
2

Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3