Crawford v. US Marshal Service

Filing 26

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying 14 Motion to Change Venue; denying 14 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying 14 Motion for Recusal ; finding as moot 22 Motion to Stay. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/12/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lawrence L. Crawford, a/k/a Jonah Gabriel )
Jahjah Tishbite, a/k/a King Khalifah of the )
(4) Global Thrones,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
US Marshal Service, USA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 9:17-cv-1633-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Lawrence L. Crawford, an SCDC inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas relief. ECF No. 1, 15. On August 9, 2017, the Court issued
a proper form Order directing Petitioner to bring the case into proper form and notifying him that
if he did not, the case would be subject to dismissal. ECF No. 9. In response to the Court’s proper
form Order, Petitioner filed an Affidavit of Facts Giving Judicial Notice, ECF No. 12, a letter,
ECF No. 13, a Motion to change venue, to consolidate cases, and for recusal, ECF No. 14, and an
Amended Petition, ECF No. 15. These filing failed to bring the case into proper form. On
September 26, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending summary dismissal of the Petition and denying Petitioner’s
pending motions. ECF No. 20. In response, Petitioner made several filings objecting to the Report
and requesting an extension of time or a stay. ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24. This matter is now ripe for
disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
1

whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the
voluminous filings and the relevant law. The Report states that “there is no indication that
[Petitioner] is ‘in custody’ as to the alleged detainer.” ECF No. 20 at 4. Specifically, the Court
notes that Petitioner is a SCDC inmate based on a state conviction unrelated to the detainer he
challenges in the instant Petition. While Petitioner asserts general legal conclusions, he does not
state a basis for habeas relief. As to Petitioner’s constitutional claims in his filings, the record
reflects that Petitioner’s claims are not specific and the allegations do not mention the named
Defendant in this case. In Petitioner’s objections, he restates the conclusions and allegations from
his previous filings, but fails to state any legal or factual basis for the Court to grant his motions
or to reject the Report. To the extent that he objects he was a defendant in Case No. 3:97-mj00630-MCIV (D.S.C.), his objection has no bearing on the Court’s conclusion that his Petition
should be dismissed. Further, the Court notes that although Petitioner has filed numerous
documents in this case, he has failed to bring the action into proper form.
2

For these reasons and the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 20,
is hereby ACCEPTED, the Petitioner’s Objections, ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24, are OVERRULED, and
the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. 1
Petitioner’s motion to change of venue, for consolidation, and for recusal, ECF No. 14, is hereby
DENIED. In light of the dismissal of this action, Petitioner’s motion for a stay, ECF No. 22, is
hereby deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 12, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

1

Unlike in a § 2254 or § 2255 proceeding, it is not necessary for a petitioner to obtain a certificate of
appealability to appeal an order dismissing a § 2241 petition. Sanders v. O’Brien, 376 F. App’x 306, 307
(4th Cir. 2010).

3