Gates v. Edgefield F.C.I.

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 16 ). The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy M Cain on 3/10/25. (rweb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Brendon J. Gates,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Warden
of
Edgefield
Federal )
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:24-cv-07661-TMC
ORDER

Brendon Gates (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 14),
filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Now before the court is the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the petition be dismissed without
prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return due to Petitioner’s failure
to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 16). The magistrate judge notified Petitioner of
his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 9. The Clerk’s Office mailed the Report to
Petitioner’s last known address. (ECF No. 17). The Report was not returned to the court as
undeliverable. Therefore, Petitioner is presumed to have received it. However, Petitioner has
failed to file any objections, and the deadline to do so has now run.
The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility
for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,
774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)).
Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to

1

which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed.
App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982));
see also Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting party ‘must
object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably
to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating only “I
object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th
Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). 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). However, in the absence of specific objections
to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Greenspan v. Bros. Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015)
(citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, failure to file
specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district
court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (quoting Lockert,
843 F.2d at 1019); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).
Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate
standards and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 16), and incorporates

2

it herein. Thus, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
March 10, 2025
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3