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.

Debnam v. Crews

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

May 11, 2015

Brian Rasheed Debnam, Petitioner,
v.
Mauriene Crews, Warden FCI Williamsburg, Respondent.

ORDER

SOL BLATT, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Brian Rasheed Debnam's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which was filed on January 16, 2015. Pursuant to Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On March 31, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("R&R"), analyzing the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this case based on the Petitioner's failure to show that a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977). Attached the R&R was a notice advising Debnam of his right to file written, specific objections to the R&R within fourteen days of receiving a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in 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.'") (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Here, no objections were filed, and the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the Court adopts the R&R (Entry 14) and dismisses this case.

AND 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.