Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191105_0002811.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 19:45:19
Document Index: 236077608

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 636', '§ 2441', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2441']

Tyganda Gilmore, # 13255171, Petitioner,
Tyganda Gilmore, (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, is incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the United States Penitentiary (“USP”) Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania. Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging the Family Court of Richland County (“Family Court”), Richland County Sheriff's Department (“Sheriff's Department”), and Department of Social Services for Richland County, Child Support Services (“DSS”) (collectively “Respondents”) failed to provide a sufficiently detailed statement notifying the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that he is not subject to a detainer upon release from BOP custody. (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should dismiss the petition with prejudice and without issuance and service of process because this action is duplicative of a prior action dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 6). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Briefly, Petitioner alleges Respondents failed to provide sufficient detail in a status report to the BOP, resulting in a detainer that will prevent him from being released into the community on his release date. These same arguments were asserted in the prior action of Gilmore v. Family Court of Richland County, C/A No. 1:18-2676-JFA, 2019 WL 3852505 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2019).
Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on September 29, 2019. (ECF No. 6). Petitioner filed objections to the Report on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 8). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
Petitioner enumerated five separate “objections” in response to the Report. (ECF No. 8). Objection number one takes issue with the Report's introduction which states Petitioner filed a claim under 28 U.S.C § 2441, when in reality he filed a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241. A review of the Petition indicates that Petitioner did indeed request relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). However, the Report's single reference to § 2441 appears to be a typographical error only and therefore there is no error in the substantive analysis of the Report.
Petitioner's second objection takes issue with the introduction of the Report wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the petition. Petitioner states that “I mades claims for my relief” and “I request my petition be serve on the family court.” (ECF No. 8 p. 1) (written as it appears in the original). This objection fails to point to any error in the Report and is merely a conclusory assertion disagreeing with the Report. Accordingly, this is not a specific objection which would warrant a de novo review.
Petitioner's third objection appears to take issue with the Magistrate Judge's recitation of Petitioner's asserted grounds for relief. Despite this conclusory allegation, the Magistrate Judge correctly stated that the crux of Petitioner's request is that the Family Court failed to provide sufficient detail in a status report to the BOP. Accordingly, this objection also fails to show any error in the Report.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Petitioner&#39;s fourth objection again merely expresses his dissatisfaction with the Report&#39;s conclusion by stating the Magistrate Judge made an error &ldquo;to dismiss my case that action fails to state claim on which relief may be granted.&rdquo; (ECF No. 8 p. 2) (written as it appears in the original). Here again, this “objection” ...