Casey v. Stevenson

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. Respopndent's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the petition is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/13/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

~'-

Larry Dean Casey,
Petitioner,
vs.
Robert M. Stevenson, III, Warden BRCI,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

.-->

No.1 :14-cv-04765-RMG

=
c..n
c:>

ORDER

n
..-4
\,..oJ
-~C,J

U
€

,
;-.:...)

0

.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 16), recommending that Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. No objections have been filed to the R & R. For the reasons stated below,
the Court ADOPTS the R & R in full. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R to which objection is made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, as is the case here, where no objections are made, this Court "must only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the
absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting

the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199­
200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings, the parties' briefing, and the R & R, and
concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the relevant law to the operative facts in
this matter. Petitioner raised two grounds in his habeas petition: (1) that his guilty plea was
"unintelligent and involuntary as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel"; and (2) that the
trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his statements of confession deprived him of his
Fifth Amendment rights. (Dkt. No.1). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Ground
2 is procedurally barred because it was not raised in any of the state court proceedings, and
Petitioner has not shown cause of his failure to raise it there.
The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the PCR court's decision on Ground
1 was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as
established by the Supreme Court or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
Petitioner alleges that counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject the state's prior plea
offer of 12 years. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3). However, the PCR court found counsel's testimony more
credible than Petitioner's. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 212-13). And counsel testified that she "never told
him to reject the twelve year deal. All I did was try to let him make an informed decision as to
what he wanted to do." (Id. at 198). She stated that "in retrospect, I should have pressed Larry to
take ... but I didn't. And I can tell you that I'm sorry that I didn't. But I did not tell him to
reject it." (ld.). The PCR Court found that, based on this testimony and other evidence before
the court, "[c]ounsel adequately conferred with [Petitioner] regarding his option to accept the
plea or proceed to trial, and was thoroughly competent in his representation." (Id. at 213). The

-2­

•

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the PCR court did not make an unreasonable
determination of facts based on the record and that the PCR court's finding was not contrary to,
or an unreasonable application of, established federal law.
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) as the order of this Court. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED and the habeas petition is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(c )(2) A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing ofthe denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate ofappealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or issues
satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find this Court's assessment ofhis constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slackv. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,683 (4th Cir.
2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been
met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge

October /3. ,20] 5
Charleston, South Carolina
-3­