Alexander v. Warden Tyger River ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION John Douglas Alexander, ) C.A. No. 6:23-03145-HMH-KFM ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) ) Jonathan Nance, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 John Douglas Alexander (AAlexander@) is a pro se state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. In his Report and Recommendation filed on August 17, 2023, Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends that Alexander’s ' 2254 petition be dismissed without requiring the respondent to file an answer or return, as successive and unauthorized. (R&R, generally, ECF No. 17.) Alexander filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on September 5, 2023. (Objs., ECF No. 19.) 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, 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 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). “To trigger de novo review, an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.’” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). 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, Alexander=s objections are non-specific or unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge=s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge=s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Alexander’s ' 2254 petition is dismissed as successive and unauthorized , and without requiring the respondent to file an answer or return. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Alexander has failed to make Aa substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina September 8, 2023 2 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3