United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro
se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Petition [ECF No. 1].
The matter is before the Court for consideration of
Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Kevin F. McDonald. See R & R [ECF No. 12];
Pet.'s Objs. [ECF No. 19]. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Petitioner's
§ 2241 petition without prejudice and without requiring
Respondent to file a return, and that the Court deny
Petitioner's three pending motions. R & R at 6.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
who is a pretrial detainee, filed this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the ongoing state criminal
proceedings against him. The Magistrate Judge recommends
summarily dismissing the § 2241 petition under the
abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971). R & R at 4-5.
has filed objections and a supplemental document to his
objections. See ECF Nos. 19 [Pet.'s Objs.] &
21 [Supplement]. First, Petitioner cites various legal
principles relating to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is not
applicable to this habeas corpus action. Compare
Pet.'s Objs. at 1-3, with Wilkinson v. Dotson,
544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (“[A] prisoner in state custody
cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or
duration of his confinement. He must seek federal habeas
corpus relief (or appropriate state relief) instead.”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Additionally, Petitioner rehashes and supplements the
allegations in his petition. See Pet.'s Objs. at
1, 6; Supp. at 1-2. The Court reiterates it need only
consider specific objections to the Magistrate
Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. Finally, Petitioner seems to
conflate the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254
with the exhaustion principle associated with the
Younger abstention doctrine. See Pet.'s
Objs. at 5-6. As the Magistrate Judge correctly explains,
Younger abstention is appropriate in this case
because (1) there are ongoing state criminal proceedings (2)
that implicate important state interests, and because (3)
Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise his federal
claims in the state proceedings. R & R at 4-5; see
generally Robinson v. Thomas, 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th
Cir. 2017) (setting forth the three Younger criteria
in the context of a § 2241 petition). Moreover,
Petitioner has not made a showing of “extraordinary
circumstances” justifying federal interference with the
state proceedings. See Robinson, 855 F.3d at 286
(“A federal court may disregard Younger's
mandate to abstain from interfering with ongoing state
proceedings only where ‘extraordinary
circumstances' exist that present the possibility of
irreparable harm.”). Accordingly, the Court must
dismiss Petitioner's § 2241 petition.
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district
court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating reasonable jurists would find the
court's assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on
procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that
the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the
petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. In
this case, the Court concludes Petitioner has not made the
requisite showing of “the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Court has reviewed the entire record, including the §
2241 petition, the Magistrate Judge's R & R, and
Petitioner's objections and supplemental document. The
Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the
R & R to which Petitioner specifically objects. For the
reasons stated in this Order and in the R & R, the Court
overrules Petitioner's objections and adopts and
incorporates the R & R [ECF No. 12] by reference.
the Court DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2241 petition
without prejudice and without requiring Respondent
to file a return. The Court DENIES a certificate of
appealability because Petitioner has not made “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court
DENIES Petitioner's motion for ...