Opinion

Brown v. Phelps

Court
District Court, D. South Carolina
Filed
Feb 4, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.5%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

AIKEN DIVISION

Anthony Jai Brown, #56283-019, )

) Case No. 1:20cv2747-HMH-SVH

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) OPINION & ORDER

)

Warden Phelps, )

)

Respondent. )

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, 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 makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommenda-

tion 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) (2006).

The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence

of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face

1

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.

Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,

the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it

herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 18] is granted and this

petition is dismissed without prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to

make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge

Greenville, South Carolina

February 4, 2021

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The 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

Procedure.

1 District courts must issue certificates of appealability when entering “a final order

adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. These rules may be

applied to other types of habeas corpus petitions. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254

Cases.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.