Opinion
C.A. No. 3:06-2044-TLW-JRM.
August 20, 2007
ORDER
A petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 has been submitted to the Court by the pro se petitioner. (Docs. # 1 # 4). The respondent filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment on September 26, 2006. (Doc. # 7). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the petitioner was advised by Order filed September 28, 2006, that he had thirty-four (34) days to file any material in opposition to the motion for summary judgement. (Doc. # 8). Petitioner filed responses to the respondents' motion on October 31, 2006, and April 25, 2007. (Docs. # 11 #15).
This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that the respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted and that the petition be dismissed. (Doc. # 16). Petitioner has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 18).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 16), petitioner's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 18); and the respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 7) and the petition is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.