Holston v. Cartledge, No. 9:2017cv00899 - Document 31 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow; denying 22 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 22 Motion to Stay. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 12/20/2017.(cwhi, )

Download PDF
Holston v. Cartledge Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Darrin D. Holston, Petitioner, vs. Larry Cartledge, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 9:17-899-HMH-BM OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Darrin D. Holston (“Holston”) is a pro se state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Marchant recommends denying Holston’s motion to stay. Holston 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 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 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) (2006). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Holston’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Holston’s motion to stay, docket number 22, is denied without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that Holston’s motion to amend, docket number 22, is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina December 20, 2017 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.