Gordon
v.
Yancey

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville DivisionNov 22, 2005
Civil Action No. 6:05-2929-HFF-WMC. (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2005)

Civil Action No. 6:05-2929-HFF-WMC.

November 22, 2005


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE


This is a habeas corpus petition brought 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 in which he recommends that the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice and without service of process. The Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court. Matthews 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 his Report on November 1, 2005, and Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of such 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 standards set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the petition should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.

In addition to the caselaw cited in the Report, the Court directs Petitioner's attention to the intervening decision of the Court of Appeals in United States v. Morris, No. 04-7889, 2005 WL 2950732 (4th Cir. November 7, 2005).

IT IS SO ORDERED.