Stanley v. State of South Carolina et al

Filing 38

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process and 33 Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea filed by Marc C Stanley is dismissed. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/19/2012. (abuc) Modified on 3/19/2012 to edit text (abuc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Marc C. Stanley,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Donald Beckwith, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.1:11-cv-00607-JMC
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Doc. 28], filed on May 27, 2011, recommending that Petitioner Marc
C. Stanley’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Doc. 1], be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance of service of process because Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state
court remedies.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 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 objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Written Objections
[Doc. 30] and Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea [Doc. 33].
Objections to the Report must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of

a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984).
In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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 Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and
the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report herein without a recitation.
The court finds that Petitioner’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report are not specific
objections, but merely restatements of the arguments made in his initial filings, and do not alert the
court to matters which were erroneously considered by the Magistrate Judge. The court finds that
the Magistrate Judge’s Report appropriately addresses Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner has
submitted to the court Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea,
[Doc. 33], which again restates the arguments made in Petitioner’s initial filings. However, as the
Magistrate Judge noted, with regard to Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, Petitioner’s only federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, which can only be sought after Petitioner fully exhausts his state
court remedies.
Therefore, after extensive review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and
the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein.
It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner Marc C. Stanley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process
and that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea [Doc. 33] be
DISMISSED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
March 19, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina

3