United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Morgan Gregory
Robinson, Jr. (“Robinson”), a pro se federal
prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. In her Report and Recommendation filed on
October 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Austin recommends
dismissing Robinson's petition without prejudice and
without requiring the Respondent to file an answer or return
due to lack of jurisdiction. (R&R, ECF No. 10.)
filed a motion to transfer to cure want of jurisdiction,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. (Mot. to Transfer, ECF No.
14.) The court will construe this motion as an objection to
the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to
further judicial review, including appellate review, if the
recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4
(4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
review, the court finds that many of Robinson's
objections are nonspecific, unrelated to the dispositive
portions of the Report, or merely restate his claims.
However, the court was able to glean one specific objection.
Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1631, Robinson requests that the
court transfer his “[§] 2241 petition to its
proper jurisdiction . . . [s]o that he can receive an
adjudication of his claim on the merits.” (Mot. to
Transfer 1, ECF No. 14.) If an inmate files a § 2241
petition in an improper jurisdiction, the court may transfer
the petition to the jurisdiction in which the petition could
have been brought “if it is in the interest of
justice[.]” See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
matter jurisdiction for § 2241 petitions requires
satisfaction of the savings clause test. See United
States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 423 (4th Cir. 2018)
(holding “that the savings clause is a jurisdictional
provision”); Perez-Colon v. O'Brien, No.
16-7446, No. 16-7756, 747 Fed. App'x 167 (4th Cir. Jan.
8, 2019) (unpublished) (finding that a failure to satisfy the
savings clause test of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) results in a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Thus, in this case, no
court has subject matter jurisdiction unless the savings
clause is satisfied. As the magistrate judge noted, Robinson
has failed to satisfy the savings clause test. After a
thorough review, the court adopts Magistrate Judge
Austin's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein. Consequently, the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and cannot consider Robinson's § 2241
petition on the merits. Further, transfer is not warranted
because no court has subject matter jurisdiction.
that Robinson's petition, docket number 1, is dismissed
without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to
file an answer or return. It is further
that Robinson's motion to transfer, docket number 14, is
denied. It is further
that a certificate of appealability is denied because
Robinson has failed to make “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal
this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof,
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate