Green v. Jackson ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Al M. Green, C/A No. 1:22-cv-1175-SAL Petitioner, v. OPINION AND ORDER Warden Jackson, Respondent. Pro se petitioner Al M. Green (“Petitioner”) filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court for review of the August 18, 2022 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges (the “Report”), ECF No. 19, recommending the court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Attached to the Report is 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 3. Petitioner has not filed objections, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of 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. 19, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. As a result, this action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). To the extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from the court, the certificate is denied because Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon September 23, 2022 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge