From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deitemeyer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Nov 18, 2014
C/A No. 4:14-2855-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014)

Opinion

C/A No. 4:14-2855-TMC

11-18-2014

Luke Deitemeyer, Petitioner, v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner, Luke Deitemeyer, proceeding pro se, filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 Petitioner's action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, or, alternatively, that Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) be granted, and the petition be dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 15). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15-1). He has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. 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 of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 15) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge
November 18, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina


Summaries of

Deitemeyer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Nov 18, 2014
C/A No. 4:14-2855-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014)
Case details for

Deitemeyer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Case Details

Full title:Luke Deitemeyer, Petitioner, v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondent.

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

Date published: Nov 18, 2014

Citations

C/A No. 4:14-2855-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Warden, FCI Edgefield

295, 296 (4th Cir. 2006) (“As [Petitioner] is no longer held in federal custody, his action against…

Jaume-Suarez v. Edgefield

"Where a petitioner attacks his sentence only and not the validity of his conviction, expiration of the…