From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roman v. Lamanna

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Aug 15, 2006
C/A No. 8:05-2806-MBS (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2006)

Opinion

C/A No. 8:05-2806-MBS.

August 15, 2006


ORDER


Plaintiff William Roman is a federal inmate in custody of the Bureau of Prisons. He is housed at Edgefield Correctional Institution in Edgefield, South Carolina. Petitioner, through counsel, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging Respondent Bureau of Prisons' refusal to place him in a shock incarceration program.

This matter is before the court on Respondents' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, which motion was filed on November 23, 2005. Petitioner, through counsel, filed a response in opposition to Respondents' motion on February 17, 2006, to which Respondents filed a reply on February 28, 2006. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks for pretrial handling. On July 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report of Magistrate Judge in which she noted that the parties had submitted, and she had considered, matters outside the record, so that Respondents' motion had been treated as one for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge thereafter recommended that Respondents' motion for summary judgment be granted. Petitioner filed no response to the Report.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report of Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report of Magistrate Judge and incorporates it herein by reference. Respondents' motion for summary judgment (Entry 7) is granted and the petition dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Roman v. Lamanna

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Aug 15, 2006
C/A No. 8:05-2806-MBS (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2006)
Case details for

Roman v. Lamanna

Case Details

Full title:William Roman, Petitioner, v. John LaManna, Warden, FCI-Edgefield; Harley…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Aug 15, 2006

Citations

C/A No. 8:05-2806-MBS (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2006)

Citing Cases

Hernandez v. Lappin

Therefore, this Court finds that the BOP did not exceed its statutory authority by terminating the program.…

Haggwood v. Magill

Instead, the broad allegation indicates that any potential injury is conjectural, hypothetical, and…