From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Stonebreaker

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Jan 19, 2023
C. A. 4:22-1318-HMH-TER (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2023)

Opinion

C. A. 4:22-1318-HMH-TER

01-19-2023

Anthony Williams, Petitioner, v. Warden Donnie Stonebreaker, Jr., Respondent.


OPINION & ORDER

Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. 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 objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Rogers' Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is granted, and this petition is dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Stonebreaker

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Jan 19, 2023
C. A. 4:22-1318-HMH-TER (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2023)
Case details for

Williams v. Stonebreaker

Case Details

Full title:Anthony Williams, Petitioner, v. Warden Donnie Stonebreaker, Jr.…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

Date published: Jan 19, 2023

Citations

C. A. 4:22-1318-HMH-TER (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2023)