Hickman v. Warden FCI Edgefield, No. 5:2020cv00678 - Document 44 (D.S.C. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the 41 Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (DE 14 ) is granted, the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, and the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 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. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 2/24/2021. (prou, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hickman v. Warden FCI Edgefield Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Kevin Anthony Hickman, Petitioner, vs. Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield, Respondent. Case No.: 5:20-cv-0678-JD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Kaymani D. West (“Report and Recommendation”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina 1. Petitioner filed this petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus on February 10, 2020. (DE 1.) Thereafter, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on March 30, 2021. (DE 14.) The 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 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). 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. 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, 270-71 (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. 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 It is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 14) is granted, the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, and the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 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. _________________________ Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge February 23, 2021 Greenville, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (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.
