Chalmers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 9:2020cv04166 - Document 10 (D.S.C. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry's 8 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that this case 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. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 04/14/2021.(cpeg, ) Modified on 4/14/2021 to add opinion to docket text (cpeg, ).

Download PDF
Chalmers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Matthew Chalmers, Petitioner, vs. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 9:20-4166-HMH-MHC OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this 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, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). The petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Magistrate Judge Cherry’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this case 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).1 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina April 14, 2021 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The 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. 1 District courts must issue certificates of appealability when entering “a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. These rules may be applied to other types of habeas corpus petitions. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 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.