Rodriguez v. Knight

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

BEAUFORT DIVISION

David Rodriguez, ) )

Petitioner, ) C.A. No. 9:21-00305-HMH-MHC ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER )

Stevie Knight, ) ) )

Respondent. )

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.' David Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), a pro se federal prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In her Report and Recommendation filed on September 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Cherry recommends granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. (R&R, generally, ECF No. 16.)

Rodriguez filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs., ECF No. 18.) 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 ' 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).

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 Rodriguez’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 finds that Rodriguez’s objections are without merit. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Cherry’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 11, is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge

Greenville, South Carolina

September 28, 2021

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.