From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Warden Broad River Corr. Inst.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Oct 18, 2022
Civil Action 6:22-01927-MGL (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 6:22-01927-MGL

10-18-2022

OTIS MAURICE ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING SECTION 2254 PETITION AS TIME-BARRED

MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Otis Maurice Robinson (Robinson), proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Warden Broad River Correctional Institution (WBRCI).

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending this Court dismiss Robinson's Section 2254 petition as time-barred. 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 September 8, 2022. To date, Robinson has 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 under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Robinson's Section 2254 petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred. All other pending motions are DEEMED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are 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

Robinson v. Warden Broad River Corr. Inst.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Oct 18, 2022
Civil Action 6:22-01927-MGL (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Robinson v. Warden Broad River Corr. Inst.

Case Details

Full title:OTIS MAURICE ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

Date published: Oct 18, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 6:22-01927-MGL (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2022)