Willson v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-09617
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RIES DISTR Ky em *» = ‘a KMS Lor”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION KEVIN MARK WILLSON, § Petitioner, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 8:25-9617-MGL § DIRECTOR SOUTH CAROLINA § DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, § PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner Kevin Mark Willson (Willson), who is representing himself, filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Respondent Director South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court summarily dismiss Willson’s petition as barred by the statute of limitations. 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 8, 2025. To date, Willson has failed to file any objections. “[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 standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Willson’s petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent Willson seeks a certificate of appealability, that 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 Willson 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.