Clark v. Cartledge

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 24 Motion for Hearing filed by Keith Alan Clark, 18 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Larry Cartledge. The Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #18) is granted. The Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. #24) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/19/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Keith Alan Clark,
Petitioner,
vs.
Larry Cartledge, Warden Perry
Correctional Inst.,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 0:13-00351-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner, Keith Alan Clark (“Petitioner”), filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on or about February 7, 2013. (Doc. #1).
Respondent filed a return and memorandum and a motion for summary judgment on June 24,
2013 (Docs. #18; 19). Petitioner filed a response opposing Respondent’s motion on July 31,
2013. (Doc. #25). Additionally, Petitioner filed a motion for evidentiary hearing on July 31,
2013. (Doc. #24).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on February 3, 2014 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to
whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #28). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the District Court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, deny
Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing, and dismiss the § 2254 petition without an
evidentiary hearing. (Doc. #28). The Petitioner did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report. The original deadline for Petitioner file objections was February 21, 2014 (see Doc.
#28). This Court granted Petitioner an extension of time to file objections on February 21, 2014.

(Docs. #30; 31). The extended deadline to file objections lapsed on February 17, 2014. (See
Doc. #31). Petitioner has failed to file objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, 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).
This Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation
and the record in this case. The Petitioner did not file objections to the Report. Accordingly, for
the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge=s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #28). The Respondent’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. #18) is hereby GRANTED.

The Petitioner’s motion for

evidentiary hearing (Doc. #24) is hereby DENIED. The above-captioned matter is hereby
dismissed with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing.
The Court has reviewed the 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. 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
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
March 19, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
2