United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
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 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 ECF Nos. 11 & 14. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss
Petitioner's § 2241 petition without requiring
Respondent to file a return. R & R at p. 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. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
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).
is a state detainee awaiting trial on five criminal charges,
see R & R at p. 3, and he seeks habeas relief in
the form of “be[ing] given a PR [personal recognizance]
bond and set free.” ECF No. 1 at p. 9. The Magistrate
Judge recommends summarily dismissing Petitioner's §
2241 petition based on Younger
abstention. See R & R at pp. 4-6.
Initially, the Court notes Petitioner does not appear to
specifically object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended
application of the Younger abstention doctrine.
See Diamond & Camby, supra
(recognizing that in the absence of a specific objection, the
district court need only review the record for clear error).
Regardless, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Younger abstention is appropriate because (1)
Petitioner is involved in 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. 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.”). Finally, the
Court notes Petitioner has previously filed a § 2241
petition, which the Court dismissed for similar reasons.
See Workman v. Dir. of the Greenville Cty. Det.
Ctr., No. 6:17-cv-00767-RBH, 2017 WL 2687894 (D.S.C.
June 22, 2017) (dismissed based on Younger
abstention), appeal dismissed, 704 Fed.Appx. 273
(4th Cir. 2017). The Court will dismiss Petitioner's
instant § 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).
foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Petitioner's
objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge's R & R
[ECF No. 11]. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2241
petition without prejudice and without requiring
Respondent to file an answer or return. The Court
DENIES a certificate of appealability
because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IS SO ORDERED.