From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardin v. Acting Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jun 16, 2020
Case No. 9:20cv1420-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Jun. 16, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 9:20cv1420-HMH-BM

06-16-2020

McDonald Hardin, Petitioner, v. Acting Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield, Respondent.


OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, 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 must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Marchant's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Petition in this case is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring respondent to file a return. Petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

District courts must issue certificates of appealability when entering "a final order adverse to the applicant." Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. These rules may be applied to other types of habeas corpus petitions. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. --------

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
June 16, 2020

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Hardin v. Acting Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jun 16, 2020
Case No. 9:20cv1420-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Jun. 16, 2020)
Case details for

Hardin v. Acting Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield

Case Details

Full title:McDonald Hardin, Petitioner, v. Acting Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION

Date published: Jun 16, 2020

Citations

Case No. 9:20cv1420-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Jun. 16, 2020)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. McCaffery

715 Fed.Appx. 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2017) (conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable in a § 2241…

Montillo v. Reherman

See Hill v. Streeval, No. 7:20-CV-00309, 2020 WL 3065310, at *3 (W.D. Va. June 9, 2020) (“Whether brought…