Fuller v. McCall
Filing
14
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Court adopts 9 Report and Recommendation. Fuller's § 2255 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 3/13/09. (swel, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Louis Fuller, Jr., #067529, a/k/a Lewis Fuller, Petitioner, vs. Michael McCall, Warden, Respondent.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No. 4:09-36-HMH-TER
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 Louis Fuller, Jr. ("Fuller"), is a pro se state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends dismissing Fuller's petition as successive. Fuller objects to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. Fuller filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th
1
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 this court. See 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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). 1
Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, the court finds that Fuller's objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge's Report, or merely restate his claims. Based on the foregoing, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Rogers' Report and Recommendation and dismisses Fuller's § 2255 petition. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Fuller's § 2255 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina March 13, 2009
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
