Moore v. Mosley

Filing 20

ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is hereby ordered that the Magistrate Judge's Report, ECF No. 16, is accepted, and the Petition, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 02/04/2019. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael L. Moore,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
Bonita Mosley, Warden F.C.I. Edgefield, )
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-2461-TLW
ORDER

Petitioner Michael L. Moore brought this action, pro se, challenging his convictions and
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation filed on January 12, 2018 by United States Magistrate
Judge Bristow Marchant, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 16. The Report recommends that
this case be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Id. The
deadline to object to the Report was January 26, 2018. However, Petitioner did not file objections
to the Report or otherwise respond.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, 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 Court has carefully reviewed the relevant filings and notes that Petitioner has not filed
objections to the Report. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report, ECF No. 16, is ACCEPTED, and the Petition,

ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
See ECF No. 16; see also Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (2017) (“[T]he advisory
Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and
that § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Chief United States District Judge
February 4, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

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).
1