Miller v. Warden of FCI Edgefield Satellite Camp, No. 5:2022cv01860 - Document 44 (D.S.C. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (DE 37 ) and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner's case is dismissed with prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 26 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 4/7/2023. (prou, )

Download PDF

Miller v. Warden of FCI Edgefield Satellite Camp Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael Shane Miller, Petitioner, vs. Warden of FCI Edgefield Satellite Camp, Respondent. Case No.: 5:22-cv-1860-JD-KDW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) of the District of South Carolina. 1 (DE 37.) Petitioner Michael Shane Miller (“Petitioner” or “Miller”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action against respondent Warden of FCI Edgefield Satellite Camp (“Respondent” or “Warden”) alleging the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to properly apply his First Step Act time credits. (DE 1.) On September 22, 2022, the Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative. (DE 26-1.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advised Petitioner of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to the motion. (DE 27.) On September 28, 2022, the Court received a notification that a text order sent to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable with a note stating the inmate was no longer at that facility. (DE 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, 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 Dockets.Justia.com 29.) That same day, the Clerk’s office completed a search on the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locater and determined that Petitioner’s new address was Michael Shane Miller, #27049-509, RRM Raleigh, Old NC 75 Highway, P.O. Box 7000, Butner, NC 27509. The Clerk’s office sent a name/address update form to Petitioner at this address. On October 4, 2022, the Roseboro order was also returned to the court as undeliverable. (DE 31.) On November 3, 2022, the Court directed Petitioner to advise the Court whether he wished to continue with his case and further directed Petitioner to file a response to Respondent’s Motion by December 5, 2022. (DE 34.) The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at both addresses the Court has on the docket, as well as the new address found on the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator. Petitioner failed to file a response. The Report was issued on December 28, 2022, recommending dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (DE 37.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report. 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). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report (DE 37) and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner’s case is dismissed with prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 26) is denied as moot. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina April 7, 2023 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. 3

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.