United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Tyron C. Wade, Petitioner,
Warden Riley, Respondent.
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
pro se Petitioner, Tyron C. Wade
(“Petitioner”), is currently incarcerated in the
South Carolina Department of Corrections. On January 11,
2017, Petitioner brought this action seeking habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“2254
Petition”). (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is proceeding
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. (ECF No. 11).
April 4, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 16) and a return and memorandum (ECF No. 15). By
order issued on April 5, 2017, pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Petitioner
was advised of procedure in regards to the Motion for Summary
Judgment and the possible consequences if he failed to
respond adequately to the Respondent's Motion. (ECF No.
17). The Petitioner was granted an extension through July 10,
2017, to file his response. (ECF No. 26). When the Petitioner
did not timely file a response, the undersigned issued
another order giving Petitioner through August 8, 2017 to
file his response and again advising him that if he did not
respond, his case would be subject to dismissal for failure
to prosecute. (ECF No. 30). When the Petitioner did not
timely file a response, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation on August 23, 2017 (“First
Report”), which recommended that the case be dismissed
for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 34).
October 4, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion for return of his
property. (ECF No. 41). On October 12, 2017, Petitioner filed
objections to the First Report. (ECF No. 42). Respondent
filed a response to Petitioner's objections on October
18, 2017. (ECF No. 44). On October 24, 2017, this Court found
that it appeared the Petitioner wished to continue to
prosecute this action. (ECF No. 47). Thus, the case was
returned to the Magistrate Judge for further handling.
November 1, 2017, Respondent filed a response to
Petitioner's Motion for Return of Property. (ECF No. 54).
On November 3, 2017, Respondent filed a supplement to that
response. (ECF No. 57). On November 29, 2017, Petitioner
filed his own motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62).
Thereafter, on December 13, 2017, Respondent filed a response
in opposition. (ECF No. 63).
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge for review.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared
another Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 16) should be granted, and Petitioner's Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) should be denied. (ECF No.
65 p. 15). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and standards of law on this matter, and the Court
incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report, which was entered on the docket on December 18, 2017.
(ECF No. 65). The Report provided that Petitioner must file
objections to the Report by January 2, 2018. (ECF No. 65 p.
16). That deadline has now expired, and the Petitioner failed
to file objections to the Report. In the absence of specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this Court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate's recommendations. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendations fairly and
accurately summarize the facts and apply the correct
principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report
(ECF No. 65). Therefore, the Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED,
and the Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
62) is DENIED
 Because the Petitioner is proceeding
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
this Court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit
to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the Petition if,
after being liberally construed, the action or appeal is
frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate
Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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
of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the ...