Brenton Miller v. Warden Joseph and Kieth Allen

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-07156
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Brenton Miller, C/A No. 5:24-cv-7156-JFA-KDW

Petitioner,

v. ORDER Warden Joseph and Kieth Allen,

Respondent.

Brenton Miller (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking habeas corpus relief under 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 May 8, 2025, Respondent Warden Joseph filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28). Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file an adequate response to Respondent Joseph’s Motion. (ECF No. 29). Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent Joseph’s Motion may be granted, thereby ending this case as to this Respondent. The Magistrate Judge thereafter granted an extension and further warned Petitioner that a failure to respond would result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 38). Despite this, Petitioner failed to respond. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 40). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines the Complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Id. 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 September 5, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by September 19, 2025. Id. After several filings were returned to the court as undeliverable, the court remailed the Report to Petitioner at a different facility as it appeared he had been transferred. (ECF No. 45). More than 30 days have elapsed since that

remailing and Petitioner has failed to file objections or otherwise respond. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. 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

and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41. 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. 40). Consequently, this action is dismissed as to Warden Joseph with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The remainder! of this action is recommitted back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 6, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

Petitioner also named Keith Allen, the alleged solicitor general in Colquitt County, Georgia. (ECF No. | at 2). The USM-285 for Respondent Allen indicates that he was served on February 21, 2025. (See ECF No. 20). Respondent Allen has not made an appearance in this case.