Gilree v. Reynolds

Filing 34

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ceilia Reynolds and dismissing the 1 Petition filed by Mayron R. Gilree. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/15/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mayron R. Gilree,
Petitioner,

v.
Ceilia Reynolds,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0: 14-cv-3686-RMG

AMENDED ORDER

--------------------------)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge recommending that this Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(Dkt. No. 27). The Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants Respondent's
Motion to for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 15), and dismisses the petition.
Mayron Gilree is a state prisoner who filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro order advising Petitioner
of the motion for summary judgment and dismissal procedures, and Petitioner filed a response.
(Dkt. No. 19). The Magistrate judge then issued the R&R, recommending that the Respondent's
motion be granted, on April 14, 2015. Upon the issuance of the R&R, Petitioner was advised
that any written objections to the R&R must be made within 14 day~ of service, and that in the
absence of timely written objections this Court would provide limited "clear error" review and
Plaintiff would waive his right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. (Dkt. No. 27).
Neither party filed an objection to the R&R The Court has reviewed the R&R, the full
administrative record in this matter and the relevant legal authoritie~. The Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge ably and promptly summarized the factual and legal issues and appropriately
recommended that the action should be dismissed as untimely. Therefore, the Court hereby

ADOPTS the R&R as the order ofthis Court, GRANTS Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and DISMISSES the petition.

Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this Court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

i7;'¥2
RiC~~

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mark Gerge

United States District Court Judge

May (r,2015
Charleston, South Carolina

2