Cook v. Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution

Filing 73

ORDER adopting the 45 Report and Recommendation, granting the Respondent's 19 motion for summary judgment, denying Cook's petition, denying a certificate of appealability, and denying Cook's 71 motion for an extension of time to file objections. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., on 1/26/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Darryl T. Cook,

C/A No. 0:15-02987-JFA

Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden of Broad River Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
Darryl T. Cook (“Cook”) filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 while confined at Broad River Correctional Institution of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. Cook alleges that his Constitutional rights have been violated based
on a number of grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court’s reliance
on inadmissible evidence. (ECF No. 1).
The Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on November 25, 2015. (ECF No.
19). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this Court advised Cook of
the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
adequately respond to the Respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 20). Cook filed a timely response on
April 4, 2016. (ECF No. 35). The Respondent filed a reply in opposition to Cook’s responses on
April 14, 2016. (ECF No. 37). Additionally, Cook filed a sur-reply1 to Respondents reply on
May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 41).

1

The Local Civil Rules for the District of South Carolina make no provision for sur-replies.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action2 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should grant the Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 45). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter3, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Cook was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on
July 14, 2016. However, Cook failed to file any objections to the Report. The Court then entered
an Order adopting the Report on August 17, 2016. (ECF No. 50). Cook later advised the court
that he was suffering from a serious medical condition and his hospitalization prevented him
from objecting to the Report. (ECF No. 53, 54). The Court felt it prudent to vacate the previous
Order adopting the Report and gave Cook an additional fourteen days to respond. (ECF No. 55).
However, Cook failed to file any objections to the Report despite the additional time to do so.
Accordingly, the Court entered an Order adopting the Report without objection. (ECF No. 59).
After this second Order adopting the Report was entered, Cook later requested an
extension of time to file objections citing several excuses for his delay including a serious
medical injury that led to a prolonged hospital stay, subsequent relocation of correctional
institutes, a delay in receiving his legal documents, and a prison “lock-down” put in place due to
a hurricane placing South Carolina in a state of emergency. (ECF No. 62). Once again, the Court

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this
court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3 The Magistrate Judge’s Report fully addresses each of Cook’s eight grounds for a writ of
habeas corpus in turn and competently applies the law to the supporting facts.
2

2

felt it prudent to vacate its second Order adopting the Report and gave Cook an additional 30
days to file objections. (ECF No. 63).
On December 5, 2016, the Court granted Cook’s third motion for an extension of time to
file objections to the Report by giving him and additional 30 days to file objections. (ECF No.
68). Moreover, this Order stated that this extension was the last to be given and after the
additional 30 days had expired, the Court would promptly rule on the Report. Despite this Order,
Cook requested another extension on January 6, 2017. (ECF No. 71). This Court finds no
compelling reason to delay the disposition of this case any longer. Cook has had over six months
to respond to the Report and has failed to do so. In the interest of judicial economy, this Court is
inclined to deny the motion for an extension of time and rule on the Report despite Cook’s
failure to file any objections.
In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is
not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation, GRANTS the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) and
DENIES Cook’s petition.
Further, because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).4

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any
4

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 26, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 the instant matter, the court finds that the defendant has
failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
4