Wright v. Warden of Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON AND ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendation the petition 1 is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file an answer or return. Further, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Defendant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 6/2/2021. (sgri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
James L. Wright,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden of Edgefield FCI,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 8:21-cv-0388-JD

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Jacquelyn D. Austin (“Report and Recommendation”), made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. 1
Petitioner, James L. Wright (“Wright” or “Petitioner”), a federal prisoner brought this Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus without the aid of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (DE 1.) The Report
and Recommendation was filed on March 31, 2021, recommending the Petition be summarily
dismissed because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. (DE 11.)
The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of
objections to the Report and Recommendation, 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 must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, and the
petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to fail an answer or
return. Further, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Defendant
has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Greenville, South Carolina
June 2, 2021

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days
from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3