From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brimmer v. Williamsburg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
May 29, 2019
Case No. 9:19-cv-00676-DCC (D.S.C. May. 29, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 9:19-cv-00676-DCC

05-29-2019

DeShon Brimmer, Petitioner, v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner, 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 Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On April 30, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a Return. ECF No. 14. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed.

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 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)).

After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report's recommendation; accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.

United States District Judge May 29, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Brimmer v. Williamsburg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
May 29, 2019
Case No. 9:19-cv-00676-DCC (D.S.C. May. 29, 2019)
Case details for

Brimmer v. Williamsburg

Case Details

Full title:DeShon Brimmer, Petitioner, v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 29, 2019

Citations

Case No. 9:19-cv-00676-DCC (D.S.C. May. 29, 2019)