Robinson v. Eagleton

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation 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 9/19/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marcus A. Robinson,
a/k/a Marcus Antonio Robinson,

) Civil Action No.: 9:14-2892-BHH
)
)
Petitioner, )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
v.
)
)
Willie Eagleton, Warden,
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________
Petitioner Marcus A. Robinson (“Petitioner”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed
this habeas relief action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (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 August 13, 2014, Magistrate Judge Marchant issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss the petition without prejudice and
service of process. (ECF No. 9.) 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. 9 at 7.) Plaintiff has filed no objections and
the time for doing so expired on September 2, 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. 9) 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
September 19, 2014
Greenville South Carolina

-2-