Swaso v. Department of Homeland Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Kyron Shakeel Swaso, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-3586-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Department of Homeland Security, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Kyron Shakeel Swaso’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On May 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia because Petitioner is confined at Folkston ICE Detention Center in Folkston, Georgia. (ECF No. 4.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. Petitioner did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Petitioner did file a motion for immediate release from detention, but nowhere in his motion does Petitioner specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 5.)

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 4), and the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge May 28, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina