From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Dunlap

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jul 25, 2017
C.A. No. 9:17-301-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Jul. 25, 2017)

Opinion

C.A. No. 9:17-301-HMH-BM

07-25-2017

James C. Williams, #282929, Petitioner, v. David Dunlap, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent.


OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, 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 Marchant's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Respondent's motion for summary judgment, docket number 11, is granted, and the petition, docket number 1, is dismissed with prejudice. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
July 25, 2017

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Williams v. Dunlap

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jul 25, 2017
C.A. No. 9:17-301-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Jul. 25, 2017)
Case details for

Williams v. Dunlap

Case Details

Full title:James C. Williams, #282929, Petitioner, v. David Dunlap, Warden, Kershaw…

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

Date published: Jul 25, 2017

Citations

C.A. No. 9:17-301-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Jul. 25, 2017)

Citing Cases

Singletary v. Stephon

Therefore, Petitioner's state habeas was not a properly filed action since the filing fee was not paid and…