EE oR a) 6, A nS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION TIMOTHY GREEN, § Petitioner, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-6806-MGL § § WARDEN PEEPLES, § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO RESPOND Petitioner Timothy Green (Green) filed this

petition against Respondent Warden Peeples (Peeples). Green is self represented. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court the petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Peeples to respond. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.§ 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 5, 2025; and the Clerk entered Green’s untimely objections to the Report on April 22, 2025. Nevertheless, the Court has carefully reviewed

the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. As the Magistrate Judge noted in the Report, Green has previously filed another § 2254 petition. Report at 4. She further observed his first § 2254 petition was adjudicated on the merits and dismissed with prejudice, such that any subsequent § 2254 petition challenging the same convictions and/or sentence constitutes a second or successive petition. . . . Consequently, [Green] cannot pursue the instant petition without first receiving permission from the appropriate court of appeals. [Green] does not indicate . . . he has obtained permission from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to file this successive petition, and the [Court’s] independent review does not reflect any such authorization. In the absence of this required authorization, a district court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of a successive habeas petition. Because the present § 2254 petition constitutes an unauthorized successive petition, the Court cannot consider the merits of [Green’s] claims and must therefore dismiss this action in its entirety.

Id. (citations omitted). In Green’s objections he wholly fails to address the successive petition issue. Instead, he states he “would like to . . . return to the lower court to pursue unruled claims that [were] raised in [his] original PCR.” Objections at 1 (parenthetical marks omitted). But, given this is a successive petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it in any manner. Therefore, the Court will overrule Green’s objections. After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Green’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. 2 It is therefore the judgment of this Court Green’s petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without requiring Peeples to respond. Green has also filed a motion to stay in which he again says he “would like to . . . return to the lower court to pursue unruled claims that [were] raised in [his] original PCR.” Motion at 1 (parenthetical marks omitted). . But again, because this is a successive petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Green’s petition. Thus, Green’s motion to stay is necessarily DENIED.

To the extent Green moves for a certificate of appealability, such request is also DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 15th day of October, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary G. Lewis MARY G. LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Green is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3