Opinion
No. 5:08-CR-00282-F-7 No. 5:12-CV-00385-F
08-12-2015
TYRONE RICARDO LAWRENCE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [DE-683] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding Tyrone Ricardo Lawrence's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE-485, DE-489].
Lawrence's initial attempt to initiate a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was a non-conforming document [DE-485] which was filed on June 27, 2012. At the court's direction, Lawrence filed a "conforming" motion [DE-489] on July 9, 2012. --------
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, 270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
On July 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a M&R recommending that the Government's Motion to Dismiss [DE-495] be allowed and that Lawrence's Motion to Vacate [DE-485, DE-489] be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the M&R and the consequences if they failed to do so. Lawrence has filed no objections, and the time for doing so expired on August 7, 2015.
Upon careful review of the M&R and of the record generally, and having found no clear error, the court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that the Government's Motion to Dismiss [DE-495] is ALLOWED, and Lawrence's § 2255 motion [DE-485, DE-489] is DISMISSED. The court has reviewed the arguments raised, and in light of the applicable standard, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
This, the 12th day of August, 2015.
/s/_________
JAMES C. FOX
Senior United States District Judge