Katajiri v. Dunbar, No. 1:2022cv02204 - Document 10 (D.S.C. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER adopting the 5 Report and Recommendation, dismissing Katajiri's 1 Petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 9/12/2022. (lbak)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Katajiri v. Dunbar 1:22-cv-02204-JD Date Filed 09/12/22 Entry Number 10 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Jesus Federico Katajiri, Petitioner, vs. Warden Dunbar, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-02204-JD-SVH OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Shiva V. Hodges (“Report and Recommendation”) (DE 5), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1 Petitioner Jesus Federico Katajiri (“Katajiri” or “Petitioner”), proceeding pro se brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging illegal search and seizure and ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. (DE 1.) Petitioner is serving a sentence of 120 months imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and is seeking immediate release from custody. (DE 5 pp. 1-2.) The Report and Recommendation was issued on August 3, 2022, recommending this action be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 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, 27071 (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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1:22-cv-02204-JD Date Filed 09/12/22 Entry Number 10 Page 2 of 2 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Katajiri’s Petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return. IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina September 12, 2022 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Petitioner 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.
