Walker v. Ozmint et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 , After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS theReport. (Doc. #24). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondentsmotion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 10 . Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/18/09. (ahen, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION John Walker, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) Jon Ozmint, Director SCDC, Warden ) of McCormick Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 0:08-cv-00241-TLW
Petitioner, John Walker ("petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. #1). The respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2008. (Doc. #10). The petitioner filed a response in opposition to the respondents' motion on April 25, 2008. (Doc. #14). On August 18, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. (Doc. #16). This Court issued an Order on January 28, 2009, remanding this case to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration on the merits. (Doc. #22). This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #24). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant the respondents' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #24). The petitioner filed objections to the report. (Doc. #26). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard: 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 or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the 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). In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #24). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondents' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge March 18, 2009 Florence, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?