Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180410_0000899.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-01-23 13:50:14
Document Index: 161841485

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2253']

Petitioner Olandio Ray Workman, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald.[1] See ECF Nos. 11 & 14. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Petitioner's § 2241 petition without requiring Respondent to file a return. R & R at p. 6.
Petitioner is a state detainee awaiting trial on five criminal charges, see R & R at p. 3, and he seeks habeas relief in the form of “be[ing] given a PR [personal recognizance] bond and set free.” ECF No. 1 at p. 9. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Petitioner's § 2241 petition based on Younger[3] abstention.[4] See R & R at pp. 4-6. Initially, the Court notes Petitioner does not appear to specifically object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended application of the Younger abstention doctrine. See Diamond & Camby, supra (recognizing that in the absence of a specific objection, the district court need only review the record for clear error). Regardless, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Younger abstention is appropriate because (1) Petitioner is involved in ongoing state criminal proceedings (2) that implicate important state interests, and because (3) Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise his federal claims in the state proceedings. See generally Robinson v. Thomas, 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir. 2017) (setting forth the three Younger criteria in the context of a § 2241 petition). Moreover, Petitioner has not made a showing of “extraordinary circumstances” justifying federal interference with the state proceedings. See Robinson, 855 F.3d at 286 (“A federal court may disregard Younger's mandate to abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings only where ‘extraordinary circumstances' exist that present the possibility of irreparable harm.”). Finally, the Court notes Petitioner has previously filed a § 2241 petition, which the Court dismissed for similar reasons. See Workman v. Dir. of the Greenville Cty. Det. Ctr., No. 6:17-cv-00767-RBH, 2017 WL 2687894 (D.S.C. June 22, 2017) (dismissed based on Younger abstention), appeal dismissed, 704 Fed.Appx. 273 (4th Cir. 2017). The Court will dismiss Petitioner's instant § 2241 petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Petitioner's objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 11]. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2241 petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).