United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Jermaine Williams, proceeding pro se, filed for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2008)
(“Habeas Petition”), alleging that the Bureau of
Prisons miscalculated his projected release date. (ECF No.
1.) This matter is before the court for review of the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), which recommends that the court
dismiss the Habeas Petition for failure to prosecute. (ECF
No. 25 at 1-2.)
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards,
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 25.) Petitioner is currently
incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Estill in
Estill, South Carolina. (Id. at 1.) On January 7,
2019, Petitioner filed a Habeas Petition. (ECF No. 1.) On
September 16, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (ECF No. 21.) The
Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro Order notifying
Petitioner of Respondent's motion and advising him of the
possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
(ECF No. 22.) On October 28, 2019, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that the court grant
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Habeas Petition with
prejudice for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 25 at 1.)
Petitioner failed to timely file objections to the Report.
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As
such, the court is charged with making de novo
determinations of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In the
absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a
de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” 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). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
court is required to interpret pro se documents
liberally and will hold those documents to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); see also
Hardin v. United States, C/A No. 7:12-cv-0118-GRA, 2012
WL 3945314, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012). Additionally,
pro se documents must be construed in a favorable
manner, “no matter how inartfully pleaded, to see
whether they could provide a basis for relief.”
Garrett v. Elko, No. 95-7939, 1997 WL 457667, at *1
(4th Cir. Aug. 12, 1997). Although pro se documents
are liberally construed by federal courts, “[t]he
‘special judicial solicitude' with which a district
court should view pro se complaints does not
transform the court into an advocate.” Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs. for Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391
(4th Cir. 1990).
objections to the Report were due November 12, 2019.
(Id.) If a party was served by mail or otherwise if
allowed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, objections were due November
15, 2019. (Id.) Petitioner has failed to file
objections to the Report, thus the court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the Report and only satisfy
itself that the record contains no clear error. See
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199; see also Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315. Moreover, a failure to file specific written
objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the court based upon
such recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court finds that Petitioner failed to heed the
court's warnings, which merits the dismissal of his
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Report (ECF No. 25), GRANTS Respondent's
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (ECF No. 21),
and DISMISSES Petitioner's Habeas
Petition (ECF No. 1) with prejudice.