Darren Clark Green v. Sheriff Ritchie

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Darren Clark Green, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-522-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Sheriff Ritchie, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Darren Clark Green’s (“Petitioner”) pro se petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 18 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 April 28, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining Petitioner’s claims and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return because Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings remain ongoing at this time.1 (ECF No. 6.)

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. To date, no objections have been filed.

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 As the Magistrate Judge noted, Petitioner filed a very similar § 2241 petition in June of 2025, which the Court also dismissed as premature because his state criminal proceedings remained ongoing. See Green v. Ritchie, No. 2:25-cv-6091-BHH (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2026). 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). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings 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 adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 9), and the Court summarily dismisses this petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge May 20, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina