JOSEPH ANDERSON, Chief Judge, District
This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation ("the report") made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.).
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a
de novo or any other standard, the factual report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1980 state convictions. Petitioner asserts his guilty pleas in 1981 were involuntary; that the guilty pleas were adversely used to enhance a subsequent conviction in 1999; that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The United States Magistrate Judge has filed a comprehensive report and recommendation suggesting that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The magistrate correctly opines that petitioner's present claims are procedurally barred and precluded by the one-year statute of limitation as contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the report and recommendation, and he has done so in a six-page objection memorandum.
The court has conducted the required de novo review and finds no basis for disturbing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is incorporated herein by reference, the petitioner's objections are overruled, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.