Thompson v. State of South Carolina
Filing
30
ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 15 Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the 1 petition, and denying 29 Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Further Objections. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/8/2015. (gmil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Douglas Thompson,
) Civil Action No. 0:14-4269-MGL
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Warden, Turbeville Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________ )
Petitioner Douglas Thompson, (“Petitioner”), a self-represented state prisoner, filed the
instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for review of post-trial petitions for
relief and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On May 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, (ECF No. 24), recommending that
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), be granted and that the petition be
denied. Petitioner filed a timely Objection to the Report. (ECF No. 28). The matter is now ripe for
review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 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). In the absence of a timely filed Objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the
Petitioner’s Objection. The Court finds that Petitioner’s Objection consists almost exclusively of
restatements of arguments already advanced in prior filings, coupled with inapposite legal citations,
and does not advance specific, cogent objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (ECF No. 28).
Nowhere in Petitioner’s filing does he meaningfully counter the core legal conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis, including the Magistrate Judge’s findings related to procedural default,
the non-cognizability of certain of Petitioner’s grounds for relief, and the determination that
Petitioner has failed to show that any of his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel satisfy
the two prong standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 24), overruling Petitioner’s
Objection. (ECF No. 28). Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Further Objections,
(ECF No. 29), is DENIED. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), is
GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific
issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
-2-
28 U.S.C. § 2253©. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029,
154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
June 8, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
-3-
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?