Campbell v. Warden, FCI Bennettsville, No. 0:2022cv01364 - Document 36 (D.S.C. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 27 Report, granting the Respondent's 16 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Summary Judgment, and dismissing the case with prejudice. It is 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 Joseph Dawson, III on 2/10/2023. (dist)

Download PDF

Campbell v. Warden, FCI Bennettsville Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Deneil Campbell, Petitioner, vs. Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent. Case No.: 0:22-cv-1364-JD-PJG ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Paige J. Gossett, 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 27.) Petitioner Deneil Campbell (“Petitioner” or “Campbell”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action against respondent Warden of FCI Bennettsville (“Respondent” or “Warden”) alleging a prison official violated his right to due process by planting a weapon in his cell resulting in him losing forty-one days of good time credits. (DE 1.) On July 19, 2022, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging Campbell’s petitions should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (DE 16.) 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 Government’s motion. (DE 17.) Petitioner filed a response in opposition on September 9, 2022, alleging a knife 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com was planted in his cell in retaliation for Petitioner seeking medical assistance during the Coronavirus pandemic. (DE 25.) The Report was issued on December 27, 2022, recommending that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (DE 27.) 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 27) and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Summary Judgment (DE 16) is granted, and Petitioner’s case is dismissed. Further, it is 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). IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina February 10, 2023 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL 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.