From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moses v. Pettiford

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
May 14, 2007
C.A. No.: 4:07-476-RBH (D.S.C. May. 14, 2007)

Opinion

C.A. No.: 4:07-476-RBH.

May 14, 2007


ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, 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 Rogers' Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moses v. Pettiford

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
May 14, 2007
C.A. No.: 4:07-476-RBH (D.S.C. May. 14, 2007)
Case details for

Moses v. Pettiford

Case Details

Full title:Clyburn Leroy Moses, #20462-057, Petitioner, v. Michael Pettiford, Warden…

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

Date published: May 14, 2007

Citations

C.A. No.: 4:07-476-RBH (D.S.C. May. 14, 2007)

Citing Cases

Hines v. Drew

Here, Petitioner is complaining about his Plea. A habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 is not the proper…