Salters v. Wallace

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Hardy Lee Salters, Jr., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-10425-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Warden Terri Wallace, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Hardy Lee Salters, Jr.’s (“Petitioner”) pro se 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On August 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss the petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. (ECF No. 10.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that the petition is subject to dismissal because it is premature. (Id.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Petitioner of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. The Report was initially mailed to Petitioner on August 18, 2025, and was re-mailed on August 21, 2025, to an updated address. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life

& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 10), and the Court dismisses this matter without prejudice and

without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. The Court also finds moot Petitioner’s motion to expedite (ECF No. 3). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge September 12, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina