Banks v. South Carolina, State of, No. 0:2019cv03175 - Document 47 (D.S.C. 2020)

Court Description: Opinion and Order adopting the 39 report and recommendation, dismissing this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution, and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr on 7/21/2020. (mmcd)

Download PDF
Banks v. South Carolina, State of 0:19-cv-03175-HMH Date Filed 07/22/20 Entry Number 47 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 47 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Kashaun Banks, Petitioner, vs. Warden, Turbeville Correctional Institution, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 0:19-3175-HMH-PJG OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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). The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 1 Dockets.Justia.com 0:19-cv-03175-HMH Date Filed 07/22/20 Entry Number 47 Page 2 of 2 of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina July 21, 2020 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

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.