# Brown v. Phelps

> District Court, D. South Carolina · February 4, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10425317

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** February 4, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10425317

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10425317. Public record. Not legal advice.