Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Alonya D. Smith, #99274-071, ) C/A No.: 6:07-cv-02024-GRA-WMC
)
Petitioner, ) ORDER ) (Written Opinion) v. )
)
Warden, FPC-Alderson, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court for a review of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C. Petitioner filed this action on July16, 2007, seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The magistrate judge issued his Report and Recommendation on September 13, 2007. In the Report and Recommendation, that magistrate recommended that the petition be dismissed as to the respondent Grady Detention Center and that the Warden of Federal Prison Camp-Alderson be substituted as the respondent. The magistrate also recommended that the petition be transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia. For the following reasons, the Court accepts the recommendation of the magistrate.
Petitioner is proceeding pro se . This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This *2 Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber , 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also “receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.” Id.
In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the objections must be timely and must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). "Courts have . . . held de novo review to be 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." Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for *3 adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis , 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Petitioner has not filed any objections in this case.
After a review of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, this Court finds the report is based upon the proper law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED as to the respondent Grady County Detention Center.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Warden of FPC-Alderson be substituted as the respondent and that the petition be transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 6, 2007
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within sixty (60) days from the date of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.