Opinion
C/A No. 8:08-3472-GRA.
May 21, 2009
ORDER (Written Opinion)
This matter comes before the Court for a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., filed on April 22, 2009. The petitioner originally filed for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on October 9, 2008, arguing inter alia that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on December 31, 2008. The Court issued an order pursuant Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on January 6, 2009, advising the petitioner about the consequences of failing to respond to the respondent's motion. On January 28, 2009, the petitioner filed a response.
The magistrate recommends granting the respondent's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, notwithstanding the petitioner's objections, this Court adopts the magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id.
In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the objections must be timely and must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn. 1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). "Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation.
In his response, the petitioner cites case law that supports his original claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner has failed to direct the Court to any error in the Report and Recommendation that would require de novo review.
IT IS ORDERED that the respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
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. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified within Rule 4, will waive the right to appeal.