James v. Ozmint

Filing 69

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED, petitioner's objections 67 are OVERRULED; respondent's motion for summary judgment 41 is GRANTED, petitioner's motion for summary judgment 51 is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/13/2010. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Isiah James, Jr., # 96883,

) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________)

C.A. No. 1:08-2256-TLW-SVH

O RD ER

The pro se petitioner, an inmate at the South Carolina Department of Corrections, seeks habeas corpus relief under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Doc. # 1). This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that the respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted, and that petitioner's motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. # 58). Petitioner has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 67). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not 1

objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto. The Court accepts the Report. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 58), petitioner's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 67); respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, petitioner's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED. The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten TERRY L. WOOTEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 13, 2010 Florence, South Carolina

2