United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Gilmore, (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro
se, is incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) at the United States Penitentiary
(“USP”) Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 7,
2019, Respondents moved for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 24
& 25). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528
F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advised Petitioner of the
summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible
consequences if he failed to respond adequately to
Respondents' motion. (ECF No. 26). Petitioner responded
on February 25, 2019. (ECF No. 28). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c)
(D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court should grant Respondents' Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 33). The Magistrate Judge
opines that the petition is moot in light of the BOP having
been notified, in writing, of the release of the detainers
that had previously been lodged against Petitioner. 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.
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. Virginia 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).
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on May 24, 2019. (ECF No. 33). The
Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections to
the Report by June 7, 2018. Petitioner filed timely
objections on June 6, 2019. (ECF No. 36). Thus, this matter
is ripe for review.
Report recites the factual and procedural background giving
rise to this action, which is incorporated by reference.
Briefly, Petitioner filed this § 2241 petition attacking
a criminal detainer lodged against him in Richland County,
South Carolina. Petitioner challenges the detainer for
assault and battery/simple assault that is lodged against him
based on warrant number I-955936.
pleadings, Petitioner names the Hopkins Magistrate Court as a
Respondent and also references the Richland County
Sheriff's Office and the Richland County Solicitor's
Office. Petitioner asks this Court to quash the warrant and
detainer based on an alleged violation of the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”). Petitioner
further discusses the impact of the detainer on his current
and future incarceration.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). A material fact is one that “might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law.” Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d
179, 183 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A dispute of
material fact is “genuine” if sufficient evidence
favoring the non-moving party exists for the trier of fact to
return a verdict for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S.
moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence
of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323. Once the moving party makes this showing,
however, the opposing party may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials, but rather must, by affidavits or
other means permitted by the Rule, set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). All inferences must be viewed in a
light most favorable to the non-moving party, but he
“cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through
mere speculation or the building of one inference upon
another.” Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214
(4th Cir. 1985).
threshold matter, the Magistrate Judge correctly opines that
the petition is moot in light of the BOP having been
notified, in writing, of the release of the detainers that
had previously been lodged against Petitioner. The Magistrate
Because it was unclear from the filings submitted by the
parties whether the criminal detainer had been or could be
removed based on the affidavits submitted by Respondents in
this case, the undersigned directed Respondents to advise the
court if they had requested the BOP remove any criminal
detainers on Petitioner, and if they had not done so, why
they had not advised the BOP of the status of
Petitioner's warrant. [ECF No. 29]. On May 23, 2019,
Respondents submitted a status report, indicating that
“[o]n April 16, 2019, the Richland County Sheriff's
Department Fugitive Task Force/Warrant Division transmitted
via facsimile a ‘Release of Hold/Detainer' on
Petitioner for previous warrants #I-955936 (assault and
battery) and #03DR404094 (failure to pay child