Poore v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-02557
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Es

SouTe. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION JERRY E. POORE, § Petitioner, § § vs. § Civil Action No. 0:25-2557-MGL § M.V. JOSEPH, Warden, § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DEEMING AS MOOT ALL REMAINING MOTIONS Petitioner Jerry E. Poore (Poore), who is representing himself, filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Respondent M.V. Joseph, Warden (the Warden). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss the petition with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 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 August 27, 2025. To date, the parties have failed to file any objections. Although the Report was returned to the Court as undeliverable, the Magistrate Judge previously advised Poore of his duty “to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing . . . if

[his] address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for [him] to meet will be received by [him].” April 1, 2025 Order at 2. And, when Poore neglected to respond to the Warden’s motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge advised Poore his continued failure to respond would result in the Magistrate Judge suggesting his claims be dismissed with prejudice. August 4, 2025 Order at 1–2. Therefore, the Court will proceed to review the Report under the standard set forth herein. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standards set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this Poore’s petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As a result of this ruling, all remaining motions are necessarily DEEMED AS MOOT. To the extent Poore seeks a certificate of appealability, his request is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 6th day of October 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Poore is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.