Opinion
C. A. 5:21-cv-83-JFA-KDW
02-08-2022
Erick Laszlo Mathe, Petitioner, v. Stevie Knight, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Erick Laszlo Mathe, proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
On May 5, 2021, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 43). After reviewing the motion and all responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this actionissued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 65). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that Respondent's motion should be granted and the petition dismissed without prejudice. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on January 14, 2022. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by January 28, 2021. Id. Petitioner failed to file objections or otherwise address the dispositive motion. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate's Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Petitioner has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Respondent's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 65). Therefore, Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is granted. Consequently, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.