Knowlin v. South Carolina Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor Office

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This matter is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/18/11.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jonathan Knowlin, #321713,
Petitioner,
vs.
South Carolina Fifteenth Circuit Judicial
Court Solicitor,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 9:11-1100-CMC-BM

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se application for writ of habeas corpus,
filed in this court 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), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed with prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to
prosecute this matter. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements
for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner has
filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by

1

the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by
reference in this Order. This matter is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
October 18, 2011

2