Opinion
Civil Action No.: 9:16-2665-BHH
10-06-2016
Rateek Allah, a/k/a Lincoln Moody, a/k/a Jose, a/k/a Antonio Espinoza, Petitioner, v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, Warden of FCI Estill, Respondent.
Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 11), which recommends that the § 2241 petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with the Report and dismisses the petition without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Rateek Allah, a federal prisoner confined at Federal Correctional Institution Estill, who is proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting he be released from incarceration due to his medical condition. (ECF No. 1.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. On September 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the § 2241 petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Petitioner has filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on September 29, 2016.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) ("[D]e novo review [is] unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation."). Furthermore, in the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge October 6, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.