United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Margaret. B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge
Michael Tyrell McKnight (“Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, brought this action against
Respondent State of South Carolina
(“Respondent”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
is a former state prisoner subject to mandatory GPS
monitoring pursuant to South Carolina Code §
23-3-540. See ECF No. 24-4. On August 10,
2015, Petitioner brought the instant petition alleging a
“Violation of Constitution Rights to Due Process”
and a “Violation of Ex-Posto [sic] Facto Clause”
resulting from his placement on an electronic monitoring
device. ECF No. 1. Petitioner asks the court to order
“removal of [the] electronic monitoring tracker.”
Id. at 16. On December 9, 2015, Respondent filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Petitioner’s
habeas action is inapplicable and moot because Petitioner was
not “in custody” when he filed the instant
petition. ECF No. 16; see Return and Memorandum of
Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15. By
order filed December 9, 2015, pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Petitioner was
advised of the summary judgment procedures and the possible
consequences if he failed to respond adequately. ECF No. 17.
On December 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a Response to
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 19.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for a Report and
Recommendation. On May 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued
an order requesting Respondent to supplement the record to
support its assertions that (a) Petitioner was released from
the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(“SCDC”) prior to filing his § 2254
petition, and (b) Petitioner was not under the supervision of
the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and
Pardon Services (“SCDPPPS”) under parole or
probation at the time he filed his petition. ECF No. 20. On
June 8, 2016, Respondent filed a Supplement submitting that
Petitioner was released from incarceration on June 1, 2015,
and was not placed on probation or parole because his
possession with intent to distribute cocaine sentence had
expired. ECF No. 24.
20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation. ECF No. 25. The Magistrate Judge found that
because Petitioner is neither in the custody of SCDC nor
SCDPPPS, the court lacks jurisdiction over the § 2254
petition. Id. at 6. Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted and the habeas petition be dismissed with
prejudice. Id. at 9. Petitioner filed an objection
to the Report and Recommendation on July 1, 2016. ECF No. 27.
Petitioner’s complete objection reads as follows,
Dear Judge Baker,
The reason I’m Michael T. McKnight S.R. writing this
letter. Because I’m filing for an objections appeal on
my civil case Because I disagree on you dismissing my case.
Id. (punctuation and capitalization in original).
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270
(1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
court is charged with making a de novo review of any
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific
objection is made. Id. The district court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party makes only
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982). Here,
Petitioner’s objection does not rebut the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion that the Motion for Summary Judgment
should be granted and the habeas petition should be summarily
court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and incorporates it herein by reference.
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16,
is GRANTED and ...