Summary
finding that IFRP is not an improper delegation of a judicial function because IFRP merely provides an inmate with a vehicle for ensuring that payment is made
Summary of this case from Mallard v. CollinsOpinion
Civil Action No. 0:06-422-HFF-BM.
July 11, 2006
This case was filed as a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the Court dismiss Petitioner's Section 2241 petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file an answer. The Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on June 20, 2006. Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Petitioner's petition is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file an answer. .
IT IS SO ORDERED.