From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dawkins v. Warden, SPC Edgefield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jun 3, 2019
C/A No. 0:19-816-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 3, 2019)

Opinion

C/A No. 0:19-816-TMC

06-03-2019

Terry Sullivan Dawkins, Petitioner, v. Warden, SPC Edgefield, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner Terry Sullivan Dawkins, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the court summarily dismiss the petition with prejudice. (ECF No. 11 at 5). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections. Id. at 6 However, Petitioner did not file any objections, and the time to do so has now run.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough review, the court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report (ECF No. 11). Therefore, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge

June 3, 2019

Anderson, 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

Dawkins v. Warden, SPC Edgefield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jun 3, 2019
C/A No. 0:19-816-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 3, 2019)
Case details for

Dawkins v. Warden, SPC Edgefield

Case Details

Full title:Terry Sullivan Dawkins, Petitioner, v. Warden, SPC Edgefield, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2019

Citations

C/A No. 0:19-816-TMC (D.S.C. Jun. 3, 2019)