From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Desir v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Oct 20, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:10-488-HFF-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:10-488-HFF-BHH.

October 20, 2010


ORDER


This case was filed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. 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 Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 9) be granted and the Habeas Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Report was 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. 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 September 28, 2010, but 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 standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 9) is GRANTED and the Habeas Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.

To the extent that Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that certificate is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 20th day of October, 2010, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Desir v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Oct 20, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:10-488-HFF-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2010)
Case details for

Desir v. Padula

Case Details

Full title:JUDEX DESIR, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ANTHONY PADULA, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

Date published: Oct 20, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:10-488-HFF-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2010)