United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se petitioner, Calvin Lyndale Gaddy
(“Petitioner”), brought this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for habeas relief. 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 for
reviewing the petition, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this
action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this
petition should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without requiring respondent to file a return because the
petitioner has not received permission from the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive § 2254
petition. (ECF No. 19). 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
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on November 20, 2019. (ECF No. 19). The
Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by
December 4, 2019. Id. However, Petitioner failed to
file objections or otherwise respond. Despite
Petitioner's failure to provide any notice, the Court is
aware that Petitioner did file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 for leave to file a second or successive habeas
petition with the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In Re Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, No.
19-465, Doc. 2 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019). However, that request
was denied along with a motion for appointment of counsel.
In Re Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, No. 19-465, Doc. 7 (4th
Cir. Jan. 7, 2020).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 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).
Petitioner has failed to raise any objections and therefore
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates
that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the
instant petition is successive and therefore this Court lacks
jurisdiction unless authorized by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Petitioner's request to file a successive petition was
denied by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court is
without authority to entertain it. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244; United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) (“In the absence of pre-filing
authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to
consider an application containing abusive or repetitive
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
reference. (ECF No. 19). Consequently, the petition is
dismissed without prejudice and without requiring a return
FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied
because the petitioner has failed to make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a ...