Lorenzo J. Ramsey v. Sumter County Sheriff’s Office

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 0:25-cv-03250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ipaes Disp, ey & SO, ny Cori”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION LORENZO J. RAMSEY, § Petitioner, § § vs. § Civil Action No.: 0:25-3250-MGL § SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DEEMING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S PENDING MOTIONS Petitioner Lorenzo J. Ramsey (Ramsey), who is representing himself, filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Respondent Warden Broad River Correctional Institution. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court summarily dismiss the petition without prejudice. The Report was 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. Mathews 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 April 23, 2025. The Clerk of Court docketed Ramsey’s objections on May 5, 2025. Ramsey also filed two motions to vacate, along with other

miscellaneous motions. The Court will liberally construe his motions to vacate as objections. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (stating a “handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed”). Having reviewed Ramsey’s objections, however, the Court holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Here, Ramsey has failed to present any specific objections to the Report. Instead, his objections amount to general disagreements with the Report’s determinations and merely repeat allegations the Magistrate Judge properly considered and addressed. To the extent Ramsey has brought any new arguments in his objections, they are conclusory and so lacking in merit as to make any discussion of them unnecessary. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the Report and the record

de novo. Suffice it to say, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of Ramsey’s petition. Therefore, the Court will overrule his objections. Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Ramsey of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 5, he has waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review). Thus, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standards set forth above, the Court overrules Ramsey’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court Ramsey’s petition is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As a result of the Court’s ruling, Ramsey’s motions are necessarily DEEMED AS MOOT. To the extent Ramsey seeks a certificate of appealability, his request is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 26th day of January 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Ramsey is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.