Edwards v. Warden of FCI Edgefield

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Respondent's motion for summary judgment 9 is GRANTED and the Petition is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 3/11/2025. (agaz, )

9:24-cv-00270-DCC

Date Filed 03/11/25

Entry Number 24

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Akeem Jamal Edwards,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden FCI Edgefield,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 9:24-cv-00270-DCC

ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On April 2, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment. ECF No. 9. On December 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
construing the motion as one for summary judgment and recommending that it be
granted. ECF No. 19. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing
to do so. Petitioner has not filed objections and the time to do so has lapsed. 1

1 The Court notes that Report was initially returned as undeliverable.

ECF No. 21.
The Report was remailed on January 21, 2025, and that copy has not been returned.
ECF No. 22.
1

9:24-cv-00270-DCC

Date Filed 03/11/25

Entry Number 24

Page 2 of 2

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 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report 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 will review the Report 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)).
Upon review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds no
clear error and adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Respondent’s
motion for summary judgment [9] is GRANTED and the Petition is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

March 11, 2025
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2