Cameron v. South Carolina, The State of et al

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 40 Report and Recommendation. Respondent's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/29/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Ronald Francis Cameron, #279627,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden of Broad River Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-1355-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner Ronald Francis Cameron, proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 21) be granted. (ECF No. 40). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 40 at 22). However, Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time to do so has
now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of
objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
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

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, DSC, this matter was
initially referred to a magistrate judge.
1

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, the court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report (ECF
No. 40) and incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED, and the habeas petition is DISMISSED.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas relief
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court
are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Rose v. Lee, 252
F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court finds that the petitioner has failed to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court declines to issue
a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 29, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina