From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Littlejohn v. State

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Dec 10, 2007
C.A. No.: 6:07-3560-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2007)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 6:07-3560-RBH.

December 10, 2007


ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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 recommen-dation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 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).

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

ORDERED that the petitioner's § 2241 petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondents to file a return.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Littlejohn v. State

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Dec 10, 2007
C.A. No.: 6:07-3560-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2007)
Case details for

Littlejohn v. State

Case Details

Full title:Quintin M. Littlejohn, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina; Director of…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 2007

Citations

C.A. No.: 6:07-3560-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2007)

Citing Cases

Davis v. Oklahoma

While Petitioner acknowledges that his petition for writ of certiorari is pending, he does not allege the…