Beltran-Martinez v. Meeks
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/11/2016.(cwhi, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No.: 9:15-4478-BHH
Opinion and Order
Petitioner, Jorge Beltran-Martinez, a federal prisoner who was confined at
Williamsburg Federal Correctional Institution and is proceeding pro se, brought this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 9), which recommends that the § 2241 petition
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to bring the case into proper form for
evaluation and possible service of process.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. 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).
On October February 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the § 2241 petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
bring the case into proper form. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of his right to
file specific objections to the Report. (ECF No. 9 at 3.) On March 7, 2016, the envelope
that was mailed to FCI Williamsburg containing Petitioner's copy of the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 9) was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked “Return to
Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner
was advised by order filed January 5, 2016, of his responsibility to notify the Court in
writing if his address changed and that his case could be dismissed for failing to
comply with the Court’s order. (ECF No. 6 at 2.)
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) by reference into this order.
It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 11, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?