From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Almedo v. Eagleton

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jun 3, 2011
C/A No. 2:11-389-MBS-BHH (D.S.C. Jun. 3, 2011)

Opinion

C/A No. 2:11-389-MBS-BHH.

June 3, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner Steven Almedo is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. On February 17, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks for pretrial handling.

This matter is before the court on motion for summary judgment filed by Petitioner on May 2, 2011. On May 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she noted that Respondent had not at that time filed a return or other response pleading, and that the time for doing so had not run. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice as premature. Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In 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).

The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Petitioner's motion for summaryjudgment (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice as premature. The § 2254 petition is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Almedo v. Eagleton

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jun 3, 2011
C/A No. 2:11-389-MBS-BHH (D.S.C. Jun. 3, 2011)
Case details for

Almedo v. Eagleton

Case Details

Full title:Steven Almedo, Petitioner, v. Willie Eagleton, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jun 3, 2011

Citations

C/A No. 2:11-389-MBS-BHH (D.S.C. Jun. 3, 2011)