Opinion
Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-01310-JMC
03-17-2016
Thomas E. Webb, Plaintiff, v. Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). (ECF No. 1) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 43), filed on January 28, 2016, recommending that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) be granted in its entirety and the petition (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, and 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 objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court granted Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 46.) Petitioner was given until March 11, 2016 to file objections. (Id.) Petitioner filed no objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. 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 Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and that there is no clear error. The court ADOPTS the findings of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 43). It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) be GRANTED in its entirety, and the petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
United States District Judge
March 17, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina