# Brown v. SCDC

> District Court, D. South Carolina · April 2, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10430935

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** April 2, 2024
- **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/10430935

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Trey C. Brown a/k/a Trey Chavez Brown, C/A No. 9:23-cv-3657-JFA-MHC

Petitioner,

v.
ORDER
Warden Nelson,

Respondent.

Trey C. Brown (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for
initial review.
After performing an initial review of Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14)
the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a through report and
recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 15). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines
the Petition is subject to dismissal given Petitioner’s death. 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 recitation.
Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on February 27, 2024. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this
Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
by March 12, 2024. Id. However, Petitioner failed to file objections and the time for doing
so has elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

A 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).

Here, 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 petition is subject to
dismissal.
After 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. 15). Consequently, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is granted
and the Petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed as moot.
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).?
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 2, 2024 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

? A certificate of appealability will not issue absent ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that Petitioner has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10430935. Public record. Not legal advice.