Dedrick v. Cruz
Filing
30
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/17/2014.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No.: 9:14-410-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Warden Cruz,
)
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________ )
Jerry Lewis Dedrick,
Petitioner Jerry Lewis Dedrick (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
habeas relief action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). The matter is before the court for
review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) D.S.C.
On May 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge Marchant issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the court dismiss the petition without prejudice and service of process. (ECF
No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
(ECF No. 14 at 7). Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on June 6,
2014.
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, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged
with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation 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 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 and
Recommendation 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 a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring
respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
July 17, 2014
Greenville South Carolina
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?