Opinion
C. A. 4:24-5607-JD-TER
10-10-2024
Kathy Reaves, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves, #50632, Petitioner, v. South Carolina Law Enforcement, South Carolina Highway Patrol, South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, Larry McNeill, Charles Lemon, Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.
This is Petitioner's second action purporting to be a habeas action. Pro se Petitioner is not in custody and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner's pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to District Court) does not apply here.
“This is a refile of the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed against SLED/SCHP/SCDP under 4:22-c-318-TLW-TER of which all agencies were dismissed by Wooten under 4:22-cv-318-TLW-TER and 4:24-cv-5039-JD-TER and 4:24-cv-341-JD-TER-all refereeing this ghost Ga warrant SLED started three years ago...” (ECF No. 1 at 7)(errors in original).
This court may only “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a))(emphasis added). Petitioner has not been convicted in state court. Petitioner rehashes allegations regarding a November 2021 arrest and resulting effects of which Petitioner has a prefiling injunction barring her from filing such civil actions without additional requirements; this second habeas action appears to be a thinly veiled attempt around the prior court order.
Petitioner is simply not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment as required by § 2254(a) and this action is recommended to be summarily dismissed without prejudice.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The petitioner is advised that he may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court judge need not conduct a de novo review, but instead 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).
Specific written objections must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The time calculation of this ten-day period excludes weekends and holidays and provides for an additional three (3) days for filing by mail. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) & (e). Filing by mail pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box 2317 Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in the waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984); and Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).