Rickards v. Bragg

Filing 11

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This case is DISMISSED. The legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/9/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Steven Jody Rickards, #08982-032,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
M. Travis Bragg, Warden FCI Bennettsville, )
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:15-cv-03068-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Bristow Martin’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on January 21, 2016, recommending that the case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Petitioner
Steven Rickards’s failure to provide the court with an updated mailing address as required by the
court’s order dated January 5, 2016, (ECF No. 5). (ECF No. 9).
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, which 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.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 9.)
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
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
1

(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. 9) and this case is DISMISSED.
Certificate of Appealability
The law governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue… only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability… shall indicate which specific issue or issues
satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability has not been met.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

United States District Judge
February 9, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

3