Summary
recognizing that some judges within the District of South Carolina have adopted majority approach to the issue
Summary of this case from Hillberry v. BallardOpinion
Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-2932-RBH-KDW
02-03-2014
Donald Earl Eaddy, #294169 Petitioner, v. John Pate, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER
Plaintiff Donald Earl Eaddy, #294169 ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 57. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court partially dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice as to Grounds One through Three. See id. at 8. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Petition be served on Respondent, but that Respondent need only respond to Ground Four. Id.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Grounds One through Three. It is further ORDERED that the Petition be served on Respondent, but that Respondent need only respond to Ground Four.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
February 3, 2014