Filed: Aug. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge. Petitioner Brad Keith Sigmon, # SK-6008, represented by counsel, filed this action petitioning for a stay of execution and requesting the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254. See Mot., ECF No. 1; Pet., ECF No. 42. On December 10, 2013, Respondents responded by filing a motion for summary judgment and return and memorandum in support. See ECF Nos. 60-61. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge. Petitioner Brad Keith Sigmon, # SK-6008, represented by counsel, filed this action petitioning for a stay of execution and requesting the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254. See Mot., ECF No. 1; Pet., ECF No. 42. On December 10, 2013, Respondents responded by filing a motion for summary judgment and return and memorandum in support. See ECF Nos. 60-61. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report a..
More
ORDER
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Petitioner Brad Keith Sigmon, # SK-6008, represented by counsel, filed this action petitioning for a stay of execution and requesting the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. See Mot., ECF No. 1; Pet., ECF No. 42. On December 10, 2013, Respondents responded by filing a motion for summary judgment and return and memorandum in support. See ECF Nos. 60-61. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 126. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court find Respondents' motion for summary judgment is moot. See id. at 4.1
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).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Respondents' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 60, is FOUND AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
