United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Rodney R. Moore, Petitioner,
Chief Beatty, Scarlett Wilson, Respondents.
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
R. Moore (Petitioner) proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis brings this action seeking a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to a
magistrate judge for review.
filed his petition on March 7, 2018. (ECF No. 1). On March
14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing
Petitioner to bring his case in proper form for service. (ECF
No. 6). Petitioner failed to bring his case into proper form.
On March 30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a second order
instructing Petitioner to bring his case into proper form.
(ECF No. 10). Petitioner again failed to bring his case into
April 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an order
directing Petitioner to bring his case into proper form and
also advised petitioner that his petitioner was subject to
dismissal pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971). (ECF No. 13). On May 7, 2018, the April 24, 2018
order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 15).
11, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report), recommending that Petitioner's
case be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 18). Petitioner
filed an objection (Objection) to the Report on May 29, 2018.
(ECF No. 21). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and recommends that Petitioner's case be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with this court's orders pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 18). See
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). 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.
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
Magistrate's Report, 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). Thus, the
court must only review those portions of the Report to which
Petitioner has made a specific written objection. Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316
(4th Cir. 2005).
objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge
to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are
at the heart of the parties' dispute.'”
Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, No.
0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec.
12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121
E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). A
specific objection to the Magistrate's Report thus
requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the
Complaint or a mere citation to legal authorities. See
Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv-00765-RBH, 2017 WL
4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection
must “direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would
a failure to object.” Staley v. Norton, No.
9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007)
(citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The court
reviews portions “not objected to-including those
portions to which only ‘general and conclusory'
objections have been made-for clear error.”
Id. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200;
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47).
one sentence Objection to the Magistrate's Report,
Petitioner has made no specific objection to the
Magistrate's Report. See (ECF No. 21).
Petitioner does not direct this court to any specific error
by the Magistrate Judge. Id. To the contrary,
Petitioner merely cites to legal authorities and makes a
conclusory allegation that does not direct the court to a
specific error. Petitioner total objection states the
following: “Partie objection to this Report and
Recommendation is lack of evidence in re wright 826 F.3d 774
4th cir 2016, Houston v. Lack 487 U.S. 266 (1988 Civil action
Report discusses Petitioner's failure to respond to the
court's orders and failure to bring his case into proper
form. The Report does not discuss any “lack of
evidence.” Without specific objections to the Report,
this Court is not required to give an explanation ...