Jones v. United States ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Coby C. Jones, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-02626-DCC ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden FCI Bennettsville, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 30, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a Return. ECF No. 9. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time to do so has lapsed.1 1 The Report was initially mailed to Petitioner on September 30, 2021. ECF No. 10. That mail was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 11. On October 15, 2021, the Magistrate Judge directed that the Report be remailed to a new address and gave Petitioner until November 1, 2021, to file objections. ECF No. 12, 13. That mail has not been returned. 1 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a Return. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge December 15, 2021 Spartanburg, South Carolina 2