Thrower v. Stevenson
ORDER denying Petitioner's 55 Motion for Reconsideration of the court's 51 Order Ruling on Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 4/11/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Robert Stevenson, Warden,
Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-01955-JMC
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Princeton Thrower’s (“Petitioner”) Objections
to the Report ("Objections"), filed on August 31, 2016, to the court’s order adopting a Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation ("Report"). (ECF No. 54.) On July 1, 2016, a Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 29), be granted and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus be denied. (ECF No. 1.) The Magistrate Judge ruled that Petitioner “failed to demonstrate
that the PCR court’s finding is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established
federal law, or an unreasonable determination of the facts.” (ECF No. 39 at 13.) Furthermore, the
Magistrate Judge ruled that Petitioner failed to provide argument as to why his plea counsel should
have obtained a second evaluation after the first evaluation determined that he was competent to
assist in his defense. Id.
The court docket shows that the Report was mailed to Petitioner on July 1, 2016. (ECF No.
40.) The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of his right to file an objection to the Report by July
18, 2016. (ECF No. 39.) Petitioner requested an initial extension of time to file objections to the
Report (ECF No. 41), and this court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to file
objections to the Report by July 29, 2016. (ECF No. 42.) Petitioner requested a second extension
of time to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 45), and this court granted Petitioner’s Motion
for Extension of Time to file objections to the Report by August 24, 2016. (ECF No. 47.) Petitioner
subsequently submitted Objections to the Report on August 31, 2016, a week after the latest
deadline. (ECF No. 54.) Because the court previously granted Petitioner’s Motion for Extension
of Time to file objections to the Report, (ECF Nos. 42 and 47), and Petitioner has not shown good
cause for his failure to file Objections, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as
On September 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”) (ECF
No. 55) of the court’s order adopting the Report (ECF No. 51) alleging that he is currently
incarcerated at Broad River Correctional Institution, a South Carolina Department of Corrections
state prison located in Columbia, South Carolina, and that the general population had allegedly
been on an Institutional Lock-Down, thus preventing him from getting to the mail room on time
in order to send a response to the Report by the final extended deadline.
Even if the court considers Petitioner’s Objections, a court may alter or amend a judgment
only if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence
that was not available at trial; or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice.
See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). In his Motion, Petitioner
fails to demonstrate a change in law, or a new evidence. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown
that he will suffer a manifest injustice as a result of the court’s order (ECF No. 51) or that the
court’s order was a clear error of law. Id. While Petitioner claims that an Institution Lock-down
prevented him from mailing his objections to the Report before the final extended deadline, there
is no manifest injustice in dismissing Petitioner’s Motion as his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
has been addressed in a previous court order. (ECF No. 51.)
Therefore, the court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 55) of the
court’s order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. #1) and granting
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
April 11, 2017
Greenville, 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?