From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirillov v. Yancy

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Sep 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 9:05-3251-HFF-GCK (D.S.C. Sep. 28, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 9:05-3251-HFF-GCK.

September 28, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE


This is a habeas corpus action. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Petitioner's petition be denied and dismissed, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. The Report is 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. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 28, 2006. The parties failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Petitioner's petition must be DENIED and DISMISSED, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment must be GRANTED, and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment must be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Kirillov v. Yancy

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Sep 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 9:05-3251-HFF-GCK (D.S.C. Sep. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Kirillov v. Yancy

Case Details

Full title:OLEG KIRILLOV, Petitioner, v. RUTH YANCY, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

Date published: Sep 28, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 9:05-3251-HFF-GCK (D.S.C. Sep. 28, 2006)

Citing Cases

Kerr v. Rogers

Such findings will only be disturbed if they are unsupported by any evidence or are wholly arbitrary and…