Starks v. Warden Lee Correctional Institution

District Court, D. South Carolina

Starks v. Warden Lee Correctional Institution

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Dwayne Eddie Starks, Case No.: 6:19-cv-2300-SAL

Petitioner,

v. ORDER Warden Lee Correctional Institution,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action for habeas relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254

. This matter is before the court for review of the August 17, 2021 Report and Recommendation (the “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. 80.] In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Id.

No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. 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, ECF No. 80, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for lack

of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In light of this ruling, Respondent’s amended motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 72, is terminated as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon January 24, 2022 Sherri A. Lydon Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown