Summary
holding that claim by federal prisoner related to confiscation of legal documents was properly brought as civil rights claim, not as habeas claim
Summary of this case from Hindman v. United StatesOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:08-3200-HFF-BM.
October 22, 2008
ORDER
This is a prisoner 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 the petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a response. 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 October 10, 2008, and the Clerk of Court entered Petitioner's objections to the Report on October 20, 2008. The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Petitioner's objections, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a response.
Petitioner's new Bivens/civil rights action number is 9:08-3545-HFF-BM.