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. 30
& 31). 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. 33). 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. 36). The Magistrate Judge
opines that under Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716
(1985), there is no authority to quash the civil detainer for
failure to pay child support pursuant to the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”). 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. 36). 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. 39). 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
failure to pay child support lodged against him pursuant to
bench warrant #03-DR-40-4094. Petitioner asks this Court to
quash the warrant and detainer based on an alleged violation
of the 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).
Magistrate Judge correctly opines that the IADA is not
applicable to Petitioner's case, and thus, in the absence
of any basis to quash the civil detainer lodged for
Petitioner's failure to pay child support, summary
judgment is appropriate. See Carchman v. Nash, 473
U.S. 716 (1985). Petitioner's “objections” do
not mention or address this section of the Report that
suggests there is no basis to quash the civil detainer under
the IADA. 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, 718 F.2d at 199.
the Magistrate Judge also correctly opines that: “As to
the other relief Petitioner mentions in his filings, for
example, his release into a half-way house, Petitioner has
failed to show that such relief would be appropriate based on
the substance of his § 2241 petition.” Petitioner
attempts to object to the Report (ECF No. 39); however,
Petitioner mostly repeats his assertions from his Petition.
(ECF No. 1). Petitioner states that the Family Court could
have “contact[ed] the Sheriff's Dept. (to contact
the BOP to send a detainer action/letter in writing) stating
a release of hold/detainer on Petitioner . . . .” (ECF
No. 39 p. 1). Petitioner's objection is not specific
because it does not point to a specific error in the
Magistrate Judge's Report, which opines that under
Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (1985), there is no
authority to quash the civil detainer pursuant to the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”).
attempt to object, Petitioner then rehashes the additional
relief he requests in his Petition (ECF No. 1) and ...