From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bedford v. South Carolina

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Oct 15, 2024
C. A. 5:24cv1680-HMH-KDW (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2024)

Opinion

C. A. 5:24cv1680-HMH-KDW

10-15-2024

Emanual Aurmond Bedford, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, 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 Kaymani D West, 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 West's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Petitioner's petition is dismissed without prejudice, and Petitioner's motion to preserve date to file habeas petition [ECF No. 29] is hereby rendered moot. 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.

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

Bedford v. South Carolina

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Oct 15, 2024
C. A. 5:24cv1680-HMH-KDW (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2024)
Case details for

Bedford v. South Carolina

Case Details

Full title:Emanual Aurmond Bedford, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina…

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2024

Citations

C. A. 5:24cv1680-HMH-KDW (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2024)