Beaton v. McFadden

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/17/2017.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Vincent Jerode Beaton, a/k/a Vincent J.
Beaton,

C/A No. 9:17-0025-CMC

Petitioner,
v.

Opinion and Order

Warden McFadden,
Respondent.

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se petition filed in this court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §2254 on January 4, 2017. ECF No. 1. Petitioner appears to challenge his
conviction for murder in the Court of General Sessions in Charleston County.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation. On April 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending this matter be dismissed. ECF No. 16. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner
of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner filed no objections within the time for doing so,
and his copy of the Report was not returned to the court.
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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
court reviews 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After reviewing 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 by reference into this Order. This matter is
dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 17, 2017

2