Brown v. Warden of FCI Estill

Filing 27

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/24/2013.(cwhi, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jerrod Brown,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden of FCI Estill,
Respondent.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 9:12-3409-JFA-BM

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, Jerrod Brown, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging his 2004 conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Georgia for possession of a firearm by a felon.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he opines that the respondent’s motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment2 should be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. However, the petitioner did not file objections and the time within which

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objection is 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).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying
petitioner of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond
to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner responded to the motion.

1

to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and adopts
and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 16) is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

September 24, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2