Davis v. Cartledge
OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 31 Report and Recommendation, granting the Respondent's 19 motion for summary judgment, denying Petitioner's habeas petition, and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr. on 4/4/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Tremain Orlando Davis,
C.A. No. 0:16-2673-HMH-PJG
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 19, is
granted and Petitioner’s habeas petition is denied. It is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 4, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
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?