United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge
pro se Petitioner, Roger S. Legette
(“Legette” or “Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, brings this action under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge for review.
reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to
this actionprepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opined that this
case should be dismissed without prejudice and without
service of process. (ECF No. 13 p. 1). The Report sets forth,
in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation.
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on May 16, 2018. (ECF No. 13).
Plaintiff filed his objections to the Report on June 1, 2018.
(ECF No. 16).
this matter is ripe for review.
Court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report to which specific objections
are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a district court is only required to conduct a
de novo review of the specific portions of the
Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
Carniewski v. W.Va. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974
F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific
objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983).
objects to the Magistrate's finding that his Complaint
constitutes a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 16 p. 1). Petitioner claims that
he brought this action pursuant to Article III of the United
States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446, 1331, 1332,
and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Id. at 1-2.
Complaint, Petitioner claims that the state court
“lacked the jurisdiction or standing to hear the case
or announce [the] sentence. As such[, ] the conviction [and]
sentence currently being imposed and forced upon the
[Petitioner] are illegal, unlawful, and void, and must be
vacated as a matter of due process.” (ECF No. 1 p. 1).
Petitioner's intentions, “§ 2254 is the
exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner
in custody pursuant to a state court judgment.”
White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir.
2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v.
Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 337-38 (6th Cir.
2006) (stating that all habeas challenges to convictions in
state court are subject to the restrictions of § 2254);
Cook v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274,
278-79 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that a prisoner “in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” must
challenge bring a challenge to the execution of his sentence
under § 2254); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480,
484-85 (3d Cir. 2001) (finding that a prisoner held in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court must seek
habeas relief under § 2254).
fact that Petitioner did not intend for his pleadings to be
construed as a petition for habeas relief under § 2254
is of no consequence. See Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d
720, 723 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that § 2254 is
“the only vehicle” through which a “person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court”
may obtain habeas relief “no matter how his pleadings
are styled”). Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d
626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 2254 is the
“exclusive vehicle for prisoners in custody pursuant to
a state court judgment who wish to challenge anything
affecting that custody, ” and all of the statutory
requirements of § 2254 apply “no matter what
statutory label the prisoner has given the case”).
Petitioner's objection to the Magistrate's Report has