Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING THE PETITION MARY GEIGER LEWIS , District Judge . This case was filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner Kwamane Monte Everett (Everett) is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent B.M. Antonelli's (Antonelli) motion for summary judgment be granted and Petitioner's
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING THE PETITION MARY GEIGER LEWIS , District Judge . This case was filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner Kwamane Monte Everett (Everett) is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent B.M. Antonelli's (Antonelli) motion for summary judgment be granted and Petitioner's ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING THE PETITION
MARY GEIGER LEWIS, District Judge.
This case was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner Kwamane Monte Everett (Everett) is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent B.M. Antonelli's (Antonelli) motion for summary judgment be granted and Petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 10, 2019, ECF No. 31, but Everett failed to file any objections to the Report. "[I]n 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.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Antonelli's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Everett's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED with prejudice.
To the extent Everett requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that certificate is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
