Williams v. Cartledge et al

Filing 57

ORDER adopting the 41 Report and Recommendation, granting the Respondent's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying the 1 Petition, denying Petitioner's 27 29 motions to stay, and deeming Petitioner's 31 motion to amend as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 8/22/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
CHAD EVERETTE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-4156-MGL-PJG
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING PETITIONER’S PETITION,
DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO STAY, AND
DEEMING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
Petitioner filed this case as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted, Petitioner’s
§ 2254 petition be denied, Petitioner’s motions to stay be denied, and Petitioner’s motion to amend
be deemed as moot. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 18, 2016, the Clerk of Court entered
Petitioner’s objections on June 20, 2016, and Respondent filed his reply to Petitioner’s objections
on July 7, 2016. Because Petitioner’s objections were missing several pages, he submitted and the
Clerk of Court filed his Court-ordered supplemental objections on July 18, 2016. The Court has
carefully considered the objections not once, but twice. Nevertheless, it finds them to be without
merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
On page twenty-one of the Report, the Magistrate wrote:
The parties are advised that they may file specific written
objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District
Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the
basis for such objections. “[I]n 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a),
(d).
*****
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this
Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to
appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Even with these crystal clear instructions, Petitioner fails to lodge a single specific objection
to the Report. Given all that is at stake here–Petitioner is serving a life sentence for murder in

2

addition to a concurrent twenty-five year sentence for burglary–the Court read and then reread
Petitioner’s thirty-five page submission to ensure it had not missed anything. It had not. Instead
of Petitioner making any objections to the Report, specific or otherwise, he merely reargues issues
that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Because the Court is in accord with
the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of these issues, the Court declines to grind the same kernels of corn
a second time here. Suffice it to say that Petitioner’s “objections” will be overruled.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standards
set forth above, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DENIED, Petitioner’s motions to stay are DENIED,
and Petitioner’s motion to amend is DEEMED AS MOOT.
An order denying relief in a § 2254 proceeding such as this is not appealable unless a circuit
or district judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate of
appealability will issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). The Court has reviewed the petition, the record
and the applicable case law and concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing.
Therefore, to the extent that Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that
request is DENIED.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 22nd day of August, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Petitioner is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4