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.

Hairston v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

October 22, 2014

BARION LEE HAIRSTON, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ESTILL, Respondent.

ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

Petitioner Barion Lee Hairston ("Petitioner"), an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution Estill, filed this pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return because "it is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their convictions and sentences through § 2255." (Doc. #7 at 3 (quoting Rice v. Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010))). Petitioner's objections to the Report were due by June 6, 2014. Petitioner filed no objections, and this matter is ripe for review.

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Camby v. Davis , 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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 & Accident Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #7). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.

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." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(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.