Footman v. Cohen

Filing 25

ORDER ACCEPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Levern Cohen, and denying Petitioner's Petition 1 . 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. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 10/9/2015. (gmil)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Ron Christopher Footman, Petitioner, vs. Levern Cohen, Warden of Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-00161-TLW ORDER Petitioner Ron Christopher Footman (“Petitioner”) brought this action, pro se, seeking a writ of habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 7, 2015. (Doc. #1). The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on August 13, 2015 by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition be dismissed, and Petitioner’s motion to amend be denied. (Doc. #22). The Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report on August 28, 2015. (Doc. #24). 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 conducting its review, the Court therefore 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 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 the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and Recommendation and the Objections. After careful review of the Report and Objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #22). Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED. (Doc. #15). Petitioner’s motion to amend is therefore DENIED. (Doc. #19). Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DENIED. 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 Chief United States District Judge October 9, 2015 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?