Edison v. Briggs

Filing 9

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Adopting 7 Report and Recommendation dismissing case without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/27/17. (mflo, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jermaine A. Edison,
Petitioner,
vs.
T. Briggs, Warden,
Respondent.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 9:16-3447-JFA-BM

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, Jermaine A. Edison, is a federal prisoner housed at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina. He brings this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a disciplinary conviction.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the § 2241 petition should be dismissed because the
petitioner has failed to bring his paperwork into proper form for evaluation. The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on March 3, 2017. However, the
petitioner did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. In the

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. 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. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)
The Magistrate Judge suggests that the action should be dismissed without prejudice
in accordance with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

March 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina0

2