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)

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