Lindsey v. Dobbs, No. 2:2020cv03653 - Document 16 (D.S.C. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Baker's 11 Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, it is ordered that Lindsey's petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 01/08/2021.(hada, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lindsey v. Dobbs 2:20-cv-03653-HMH Date Filed 01/08/21 Entry Number 16 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Reginald William Lindsey, #11433-058, Petitioner, vs. Warden Bryan K. Dobbs, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 2:20-03653-HMH-MGB OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Reginald William Lindsey (“Lindsey”), a pro se federal prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In her Report and Recommendation filed on December 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Baker recommends dismissing Lindsey’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return. Lindsey 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 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 2:20-cv-03653-HMH Date Filed 01/08/21 Entry Number 16 Page 2 of 2 accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th 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 Lindsey’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Accordingly, after review, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Baker’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Lindsey’s petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina January 8, 2021 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.
