Snoke v. Dobbs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

GREENVILLE DIVISION

James William Snoke, Case No.: 6:21-cv-00142-SAL

Petitioner, v.

OPINION AND ORDER

Bryan Dobbs, Warden at FCI Williamsburg,

Respondent.

This matter is before the Court for review of the March 12, 2021 Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 10]. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file an answer or return. Id. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. See id. 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, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return.

It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon

July 1, 2021 Sherri A. Lydon

Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge

1 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). 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). In the instant matter, the court finds that Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”