From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luis Francisco Cleofas v. State

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Jul 20, 2009
C.A. No.: 3:08-2861-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 20, 2009)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 3:08-2861-RBH.

July 20, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Petitioner 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 McCrorey's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss is denied and Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Luis Francisco Cleofas v. State

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Jul 20, 2009
C.A. No.: 3:08-2861-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 20, 2009)
Case details for

Luis Francisco Cleofas v. State

Case Details

Full title:Luis Francisco Cleofas, #309938, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina…

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

Date published: Jul 20, 2009

Citations

C.A. No.: 3:08-2861-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 20, 2009)

Citing Cases

Sanders v. Warden of Allendale Corr. Inst.

The undersigned agrees with Respondent that Supplemental Ground One is procedurally barred. Petitioner did…

Loy v. Seifert

That he chose not to do so and pled guilty to the charges in the Information is of no consequence to this…