Brown v. Cutludge

Filing 26

ORDER ACCEPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting the Respondent's motion for summary judgment 16 . The Petitioner's application is denied and this action is dismissed. Additionally, the Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 10/3/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Gifford Brown,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden Cartledge, McCormick Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:12-139-TLW-SVH

ORDER
Petitioner Gifford Brown (“Petitioner”) brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges to whom this case had previously been
assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. (Doc. # 23). Objections were due by September 10, 2012.
Petitioner has filed no objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
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 has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 23). The Respondent’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED. (Doc. # 16). The Petitioner’s application is
DENIED and the action 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.

October 3, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

__s/Terry L. Wooten______
United States District Judge