Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gerald v. Richardson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

July 14, 2014

Dontest Gerald, Petitioner,
v.
Jimmy Richardson, II, Solicitor, Respondent.

ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The pro se petitioner, Dontest Gerald, is a pretrial detainee at the J. Reuben Long Detention Center in Conway, South Carolina awaiting disposition on various criminal charges. He contends that he is being illegally confined as a result of the State of South Carolina's violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) and he seeks immediate release from custody.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed without prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.

The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 6, 2014. However, the petitioner has failed to filed objections and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, 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 Magistrate Judge correctly opines that petitioner has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant federal habeas review of his speedy trial claim. The Magistrate Judge also notes that the petitioner can pursue his speedy trial claim in state court.

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.

Because the defendant has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, " a certificate of appealability is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).[2]

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.