From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Toussaint v. Knight

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jun 25, 2021
C.A. No. 6:21-764-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Jun. 25, 2021)

Opinion

C. A. 6:21-764-HMH-KFM

06-25-2021

Wisly Toussaint, Petitioner, v. Stevie Knight, Respondent.


OPINION & ORDER

Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Petitioner's petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

District courts must issue certificates of appealability when entering “a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. These rules may be applied to other types of habeas corpus petitions. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Toussaint v. Knight

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jun 25, 2021
C.A. No. 6:21-764-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Jun. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Toussaint v. Knight

Case Details

Full title:Wisly Toussaint, Petitioner, v. Stevie Knight, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 25, 2021

Citations

C.A. No. 6:21-764-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Jun. 25, 2021)

Citing Cases

Torres v. Knight

Even if Petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies, the case would nevertheless be subject to…

Simpson v. Knight

Even if Petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies, the case would nevertheless be subject to…