From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vaughn v. Riley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 28, 2015
C/A No. 2:14-4559-TMC (D.S.C. May. 28, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No. 2:14-4559-TMC

05-28-2015

Christopher M. Vaughn, # 339181, Petitioner, v. Warden Tim Riley, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner Christopher M. Vaughn, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 18). Petitioner was advised of his right to filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18 at 3). However, Petitioner has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do has now run.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 18) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge
May 28, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Vaughn v. Riley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 28, 2015
C/A No. 2:14-4559-TMC (D.S.C. May. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Vaughn v. Riley

Case Details

Full title:Christopher M. Vaughn, # 339181, Petitioner, v. Warden Tim Riley…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: May 28, 2015

Citations

C/A No. 2:14-4559-TMC (D.S.C. May. 28, 2015)