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.

Gold v. Dozier

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

April 23, 2019

Nathaniel Gold, Petitioner,
v.
Vernetia Dozier, Director; County of Orangeburg; State of South Carolina Respondents.

          ORDER

          G. Michelle Grill United States District Judge

         This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed on February 22, 2019 (ECF No. 13). The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the court DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner Nathaniel Gold's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) (ECF No. 1).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 13 at 1-2.) Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in the Orangeburg County Detention Center waiting disposition of criminal charges in South Carolina state court. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Petitioner alleges that the bench warrant on which he was arrested was “unlawfully signed.” (Id.) On February 4, 2019, Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant Habeas Petition, challenging his detention. (Id. at 1-3.) On February 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order finding that “Petitioner's [Habeas] [P]etition is subject to summary dismissal” under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), [1] but provided Petitioner an opportunity “to correct the defects in his [H]abeas [P]etition by filing an amended [P]etition by February 25, 2019.” (ECF No. 8 at 5.) The Order also informed Petitioner that “[i]f [he] fail[ed] to file an amended petition or fail[ed] to cure the deficiencies identified above, the court will recommend to the district court that the case be dismissed.” (Id.) Petitioner filed an Amended Habeas Petition on February 20, 2019. (ECF No. 10.)

The Magistrate Judge entered her Report on February 22, 2019. (ECF No. 13.) The Magistrate Judge found Petitioner's [A]mended [Habeas] [P]etition fails to correct the deficiencies outlined in the February 11, 2019 [O]rder. Petitioner has failed to allege facts sufficient to meet the Younger test, as he has not shown that he does not have an adequate remedy at law and that he will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.

(Id. at 5.) Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this action with prejudice. (Id. at 5-6 (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)).)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court; the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court engages in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made specific objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         III. DISCUSSION

         On February 22, 2019, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties of their right to file objections by March 8, 2019. (ECF No. 13 at 7.) Neither of the parties filed any objections to the Report by this date. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendations without modification. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Absent objections, the court must only ensure that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendations. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). If a party fails to file specific, written objections to the Report, the party forfeits the right to appeal the court's decision concerning the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, since none of the parties filed any objections to the Report, and the court observes no clear error on the face of the record, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in this case. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the court DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner's Habeas Petition and Amended Habeas Petition (ECF Nos. 1, 10).

         IT ...


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.