Merritt v. Adm'r, Greenville Cnty. Det. Ctr.

Full title: Tony Demetrius Merritt, #307281, PETITIONER v. Administrator, Greenville…

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jan 17, 2023

4:22-cv-2881-TLW (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2023)

Opinion

4:22-cv-2881-TLW

01-17-2023

Tony Demetrius Merritt, #307281, PETITIONER v. Administrator, Greenville County Detention Center, RESPONDENT

Terry L. Wooten, Senior United States District Judge.

ORDER

Terry L. Wooten, Senior United States District Judge.

Petitioner Tony Demetrius Merritt (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner is a state pretrial detainee who has been charged with murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime. ECF No. 18 at 2. His requested relief is the dismissal of all charges and his release. ECF No. 1.

The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned, the Honorable Thomas R. Rogers, III. ECF No. 18. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the petition be dismissed based on the principle of federal abstention during the course of an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Id. at 3 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971)). Petitioner did not file objections to the Report. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for decision.

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 18, is ACCEPTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.