English v. McCall
OPINION AND ORDER extending the time for filing a response to Respondent's motion for summary judgment through June 21, 2013, re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment ( Response to Motion due by 6/21/2013), and denying 37 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/30/2013. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Michael McCall, Warden,
C/A NO. 0:12-2910-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed
in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a
Report and Recommendation.
On May 14, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to prosecute this
action. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
Petitioner filed a response to the Report on May 28, 2013, as well as a motion for appointment of
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which
a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The court has conducted a de novo review of the record as to the response made and has
considered Petitioner’s response, the entire record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
As Petitioner is proceeding pro se and because dismissal of this matter will affect Petitioner’s
right to pursue a writ of habeas corpus in this court, the court hereby extends the time for filing a
response to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment through Friday, June 21, 2013. Petitioner
is specifically advised that failure to file a response to the motion for summary judgment by Friday,
June 21, 2013 will result in dismissal of the petition with prejudice. Petitioner is advised that he
must file his response with the Clerk of Court, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina
29201, and a serve Respondent’s counsel with a copy of his response. If a response is filed, this
matter will be re-referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
As to Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, there is no right to appointed counsel
in habeas cases. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327,
1340 (4th Cir. 1995). Attorneys may be appointed for a person “seeking relief under section 2241,
2254, or 2255 of title 28” when “the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel may be appointed when counsel is necessary for effective
discovery and must be appointed when evidentiary hearings are required. See Rules Governing §
2254 Cases, Rules 6(a) & 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
The Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned has issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the petition be dismissed.
ECF No. 33.
Accordingly, as no evidentiary hearing is set in this matter and the questions presented in the
petition are not so complex as to require an attorney to effectively argue them for Petitioner,
Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 37) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 30, 2013
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?