Johnson v. United States of America, No. 1:2020cv11986 - Document 7 (D. Mass. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER adopting the 4 Report and Recommendation and ordering that Johnson's § 2241 petition is transferred to the District of Massachusetts. Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr on 11/3/2020. (lbak)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. United States of America Doc. 7 Case 1:20-cv-11986-MBB Document 7 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Tyrone Johnson, Petitioner, vs. United States of America, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 1:20-3718-HMH-SVH OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Tyrone Johnson (“Johnson”) seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting that he retain “permanent residency status” in South Carolina. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends transferring this case to the District of Massachusetts, the District where Johnson is housed. Johnson 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 Cir. 1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District 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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-11986-MBB Document 7 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 2 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 Johnson’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Johnson’s § 2241 petition is transferred to the District of Massachusetts. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina November , 2020 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The movant is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
