Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Beatty

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

July 10, 2018

Rodney R. Moore, Petitioner,
v.
Chief Beatty, Scarlett Wilson, Respondents.

          ORDER

          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge

         Rodney 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.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Petitioner 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 proper form.

         On 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).

         On May 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.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] 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.

         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 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).

         “An 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).

         “Generally 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).

         III. ANALYSIS

         In his 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 no. 6:18-cv-624-JFA-KFM.”

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.