From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitt v. Reynolds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
May 1, 2015
C/A No. 1:14-4008-TMC (D.S.C. May. 1, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No. 1:14-4008-TMC

05-01-2015

Steven Whitt, #255456, Petitioner, v. Warden Cecilia Reynolds, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner Steven Whitt, 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. 25). Petitioner has not filed any objections to the Report. In fact, the Report, which was mailed to Petitioner's last known address, was returned as undeliverable.

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. 25) 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 1, 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

Whitt v. Reynolds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
May 1, 2015
C/A No. 1:14-4008-TMC (D.S.C. May. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Whitt v. Reynolds

Case Details

Full title:Steven Whitt, #255456, Petitioner, v. Warden Cecilia Reynolds, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 1, 2015

Citations

C/A No. 1:14-4008-TMC (D.S.C. May. 1, 2015)