From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flentall v. Janson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Feb 20, 2024
Civil Action 8:23-855-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 8:23-855-MGL

02-20-2024

EMILIO FLENTALL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN SEAN JANSON, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING THE PETITION

MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Emilio Flentall (Flentall) filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (the petition) against the Warden at FCI Edgefield, who is presently Warden Sean Janson (Janson). Flentall is representing himself.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Janson's motion for summary judgment be granted and the petition be denied. 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 January 25, 2024, but Flentall failed to file any objections. “[I]n 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). 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 this Court Janson's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the petition is DENIED.

To the extent Flentall moves for a certificate of appealability, such request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Flentall is 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

Flentall v. Janson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Feb 20, 2024
Civil Action 8:23-855-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2024)
Case details for

Flentall v. Janson

Case Details

Full title:EMILIO FLENTALL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN SEAN JANSON, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Feb 20, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 8:23-855-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2024)