Smith v. Pate

Filing 57

ORDER adopting 50 Report and Recommendation, granting Respondent's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the petition with prejudice. The court further finds moot Petitioner's 24 Motion for Injunctive Relief and 25 Motion for Assistance with Subpoenas. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/29/2016. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Randall Smith, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) John Pate, ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03515-JMC ORDER Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). (ECF No. 1) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 50), filed on December 4, 2015, recommending that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) be granted in its entirety and the petition (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, and 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). 1 After this court granted Petitioner’s Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 52) as to the Report, (ECF No. 54), this court instructed Petitioner that he had an additional ten (10) days to file his objection and that his objections therefore were due by February 26, 2016. (ECF No. 54.) Petitioner filed no objections. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and that there is no clear error. The court ADOPTS the findings of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 50). It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) be GRANTED in its entirety, and the petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice. This court further finds MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 24) and Motion for Assistance with Subpoenas (ECF No. 25). IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge February 29, 2016 Columbia, South Carolina 2

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?