Webb v. Cartledge

Filing 29

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioners action (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/20/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jeffrey Webb,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Leroy Cartledge,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:15-cv-01720-JMC

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 26), filed on September 28, 2015,
recommending that Petitioner’s action (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report 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, and 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 to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the 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 an objection to the Report “within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by October 16, 2015. (ECF
No. 26.) Petitioner filed no objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26). It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s action
(ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED

United States District Judge

January 20, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina