Jones v. Bush
Filing
47
ORDER accepting 43 Report and Recommendation. Respondent's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted, and the petition is dismissed as untimely. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 4/20/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
FREDDIE RICHARD JONES,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DENNIS BUSH, Warden, Lee Correctional )
Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
___________________________________ )
Case No. 0:14-cv-01760-TLW
ORDER
Petitioner Freddie Richard Jones, an inmate at McCormick Correctional Institution, filed
this pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 1, 2014. (Doc. #1). Respondent
filed a return and memorandum and a motion for summary judgment on September 22, 2014,
asserting that the petition was not timely filed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1). (Doc. #22, 23). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to
whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the petition as untimely. (Doc. #43).
Petitioner’s objections to the Report were due by March 12, 2015. Petitioner failed to file
objections, and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections
to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a
case, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it
accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #43). For the reasons articulated
by the Magistrate Judge, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED
(Doc. #22), and this petition is DISMISSED as untimely (Doc. #1).
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. 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
April 20, 2015
Columbia, 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?