Saunders v. Dobbs ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., C/A No. 2:19-cv-02886-JFA-MGB Petitioner, v. ORDER Bryan K. Dobbs, Respondent. Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). 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 a Magistrate Judge for review. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and Petitioner’s § 2241 petition be dismissed. Additionally, the Report recommends that Petitioner’s motion for a rule to show cause be denied. The Report sets forth, in detail, the 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (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). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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 July 2, 2020. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by July 16, 2020. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections or otherwise responded. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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). After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 50). Thus, Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is granted and Petitioner’s Petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, Petitioner’s motion for rule to show cause is denied. (ECF No. 21). Further, it is ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make ‘“‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” IT IS SO ORDERED. peg Cader tons August 5, 2020 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge > A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).