Halsey v. Pate

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS accepting 32 Report and Recommendations, granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John R Pate, and concluding that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/5/2012. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sherrick S. Halsey,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
John R. Pate,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:11-cv-702-TLW-PJG

ORDER
The petitioner, Sherrick S. Halsey (“Halsey” or “petitioner”), brought this civil action, pro
se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 24, 2011. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett to whom this case had previously
been assigned. (Doc. # 32). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court
grant the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 22) and deny Halsey’s petition. (Doc.
# 32). The petitioner filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 34). 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.
1

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. # 32). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondent’s
motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 22) is GRANTED and Halsey’s petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of
appealability as to the issues raised herein. The petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate
from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
March 5, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

2