Beeman v. Janson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Michael Steven Beeman, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-01622-TMC ) vs. ) ORDER ) Warden Janson, ) ) Respondent. ) ) _________________________________) Petitioner Michael Steven Beeman (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Respondent Warden Janson filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 20). The court issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), which explained the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment process and warned Petitioner that failure to adequately respond could result in the court granting the motion. (ECF No. 21). Petitioner filed a motion to extend the time for him to file his response, (ECF No. 23), which the court granted, (ECF No. 24). He then filed a letter and a response to the motion. (ECF Nos. 26, 27). Respondent filed a reply. (ECF No. 28). Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny the Petition. (ECF No. 30). The magistrate judge notified Petitioner of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 11. The Report was mailed to Petitioner at his last known address, (ECF No. 31), and it was not returned to the court as undeliverable. Therefore, Petitioner is presumed to have received it. However, Petitioner has failed to file any objections to the Report, and the deadline to do so has now run. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,

774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)); see also Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating only “I object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th

Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Bros. Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (quoting Lockert, 843 F.2d at 1019); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).

Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate standards and, finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 30), and incorporates it herein.1 Thus, the court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20), and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina December 12, 2024

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1 However, the court notes that the Report recommends both denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice. Because the court is granting summary judgment and denying the Petition, the court need not dismiss the Petition.