# Brown v. Joseph

> District Court, D. South Carolina · April 8, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10842159

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** April 8, 2025
- **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/10842159

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Devron Brown, C/A No. 2:24-cv-5625-SAL

Petitioner,

v.
ORDER
Warden M. V. Joseph,

Respondent.

Petitioner Devron Brown (“Petitioner”), a pro se litigant, filed this habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [ECF No.1.] Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). He alleges BOP must immediately award him time credit under the
First Step Act of 2018. [ECF No. 1.] Respondent moves to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment on the ground that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before
filing his petition. [ECF No. 8.]
This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued
by United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending that the court grant Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. [ECF No. 13.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Petitioner of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he
failed to do so. Id. at 11. Petitioner has not filed objections, nor has he responded to the court, and
the time for doing so has expired.
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 this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance
with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 13, and
incorporates it by reference herein. As a result, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment [ECF
No. 8] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
shure t.
April 8, 2025 Shern A. Lydon
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10842159. Public record. Not legal advice.