Davis v. South Carolina, The State of

Filing 37

ORDER adopting 32 Report and Recommendation, granting Respondent's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Petitioner's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying Petitioner's 28 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/14/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Terry D. Davis, #197349,

C/A No. 1:15-307-JFA

Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden of Livesay Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.

Terry D. Davis (“Davis”) filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 while confined at Livesay Correctional Institution of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. Davis alleges that his Constitutional rights have been violated
because the transcript of his trial was fabricated at his post-conviction hearing. (ECF No. 1).
Specifically, he alleges that his attorney entered into a corrupt agreement with the prosecuting
attorney with the intent of deceiving him and defrauding the court. Id. Davis further alleges that
his guilty plea was not entered into knowingly and voluntarily and that there was no plea
colloquy between the court and Davis. 1 (ECF No 1; ECF No. 34).
The Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on July 1, 2015. (ECF No. 24).
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this Court advised Davis of the
summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
respond to the Respondent’s motion by August 6, 2015. (ECF No. 25). Davis filed a timely
response on July 20, 2015. (ECF No. 27). On that date, Davis also filed a motion for a new trial
(ECF No. 28) and a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29). The Respondent filed

1

There is no evidence or factual basis for any of these claims made by Davis.

responses in opposition to both of Davis’ motions on August 5, 2015. (ECF No. 29; ECF No.
30).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 2 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should grant the Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 32). Further, the Report opines that this Court should deny Davis’
motions for a new trial and for summary judgment. Id. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation.
Davis was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on September 15, 2015. Davis filed a response to the report on September 30, 2015, but failed to
make any specific objections to the report. (ECF No. 34). Instead of making specific objections,
Davis merely restated the claims in his complaint. 3 In the absence of specific objections to the
Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
2

3

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection
is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The Magistrate’s Report thoroughly discussed issues concerning the statute of limitations and the
untimeliness of Davis’ habeas filing. Davis did not respond to these issues whatsoever in his “motion
to objection to report and recommendation.” (ECF No. 34). Instead, Davis merely restated the claims
that his trial transcript was fabricated and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea
because there was no plea colloquy.
2

Recommendation and grants the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24).
Davis’ motions for a new trial (ECF No. 28) and for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) are
denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 14, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3