United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
June 17, 2015
DOMMERNICK BROWN, #XXXXX-XXX, United States of America, Suis Juris-Pro Se and Pro Se Coach-In Forma Pauperis and Supporter of The Second Coming of Jesus Christ Super-Star The Messiah and Super-Star and The Version of The New World Order #777 ALMIGHTY-GODs New World Order 777, Petitioner,
HON. WARDEN B.R. JETT, Warden of the Federal Medical Center (located in Rochester, Minnesota), Respondent.
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Petitioner Dommernick Brown ("Petitioner"), an inmate at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, 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 Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(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. (Doc. #7). Petitioner's objections to the Report were due by June 15, 2015. Petitioner failed to file objections, and this matter is now 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.