Ali v. FCI Pollock

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Muzammil Ali, C/A No. 1:24-cv-4059-JFA-SVH

Petitioner,

v. ORDER Warden of FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent.

Petitioner Muzammil Ali, proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. On October 11, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 13). After reviewing all briefing associated with that motion, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 18). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that Respondent’s motion should be granted and the petition dismissed. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on November 20, 2024. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by December 4, 2024. Id. Petitioner failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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). A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the motion for summary judgment should be granted. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 18). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the petition is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. peg Cader tons December 20, 2024 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge