Gere v. Mincey ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Soren G. Gere, C/A No. 2:21-cv-02818-JFA-MGB Petitioner, v. ORDER Commander Johnny L. Mincey, Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, SC, Respondent. Petitioner Soren G. Gere (“Petitioner”), proceeding through counsel, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. On February 4, 2022, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 10). After reviewing the motion and all responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 15). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that Respondent’s motion should be granted and the petition dismissed with prejudice. 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 May 5, 2022. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by May 19, 2022. Id. Petitioner failed to file objections to the Report. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. 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). 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 Judge’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 Respondent’s motion for summary judgment should be granted. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds that 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). Therefore, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) is granted. Consequently, the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Oreo 4 7 9 May 25, 2022 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge