From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duckett v. Warden of Wateree River Corr. Inst.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Mar 8, 2022
C. A. 1:21-2876-HMH-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2022)

Opinion

C. A. 1:21-2876-HMH-SVH

03-08-2022

John Anthony Duckett, Petitioner, v. Warden of Wateree River Correctional Institution, Respondent.


OPINION & ORDER

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior United States District Judge.

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges' Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Duckett v. Warden of Wateree River Corr. Inst.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Mar 8, 2022
C. A. 1:21-2876-HMH-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2022)
Case details for

Duckett v. Warden of Wateree River Corr. Inst.

Case Details

Full title:John Anthony Duckett, Petitioner, v. Warden of Wateree River Correctional…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division

Date published: Mar 8, 2022

Citations

C. A. 1:21-2876-HMH-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2022)