McBride v. Cartledge

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 1 Petition. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised herein. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/21/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
CLYDE L. MCBRIDE,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WARDEN CARTLEDGE,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 0:14-cv-03830-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Clyde L. McBride, an inmate at McCormick Correctional Institution, filed this
pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 1, 2014. (Doc. #1). Respondent
filed a return and memorandum and a motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2015. (Doc.
#19, 20). 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 deny the petition. (Doc. #30). Petitioner filed his objections to the
Report on July 10, 2015 (Doc. #32), and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
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.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Petitioner’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #30), and Petitioner’s objections thereto are
OVERRULED (Doc. #32). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Respondent’s
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. #20), and the petition is DENIED (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
July 21, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina