Hensley v. United States ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Todd Michael Hensley, ) ) Civil Case No. 1:22-3970-HMH-SVH Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) United States of America, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 Todd Michael Hensley (“Hensley”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (§ 2241 Pet., generally, ECF No. 1.) In her Report and Recommendation filed on November 16, 2022, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that the court dismiss the petition in this case without requiring the respondent to file an answer. 1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Hensley filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs., ECF No. 11.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, the court finds that Hensley’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Accordingly, after review, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that this petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file an answer. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina December 12, 2022 2 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3