Harris v. SCDC

Filing 34

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is therefore ORDERED that the Respondents Motion for Summary judgment is GRANTED and that the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/19/2011.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jarvis Harris,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Anthony Padula, Warden of Lee
)
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:11-236-TMC

OPINION and ORDER

Jarvis Harris (“Petitioner”), a pro se prisoner, filed this action against the Respondent
seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. # 27) filed July 8, 2011, recommending that the court grant
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 19) and that the Petition be dismissed, with
prejudice. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal
standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report herein without
a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The

Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
1

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. # 27 at 9). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before July
25, 2011. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. This
matter was reassigned to the undersigned on October 14, 2011.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report
and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 27) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion for Summary
judgment is GRANTED and that the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
2

Greenville, South Carolina
December 19, 2011

3

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.

4