From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wall v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Feb 22, 2011
C/A NO. 2:10-3205-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2011)

Opinion

C/A NO. 2:10-3205-CMC.

February 22, 2011


OPINION and ORDER


This matter is before the court on Petitioner's pro se application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On January 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring a response from Respondents. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner filed objections to the Report on February 17, 2011.

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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Petitioners's objections, the court finds that Petitioner's objections are reargument of issues presented in his petition and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The court therefore agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report.

The petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file a return.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Columbia, South Carolina

February 22, 2011


Summaries of

Wall v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Feb 22, 2011
C/A NO. 2:10-3205-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2011)
Case details for

Wall v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Rodney E. Wall, #20640-057, Petitioner, v. United States of America; and…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2011

Citations

C/A NO. 2:10-3205-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2011)

Citing Cases

Wall v. Owens

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by…

Boynes v. Berkebile

Darden, 2011 WL 1625094, at *1-2 (citing Poole, 531 F.3d at 267 n.7)(appellate court reversed district…