Lewis v. South Carolina, State of
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation; granting Respondent's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Petitioner's 12 Motion for Entry of Default; and denying Petitioner's 13 Motion for Default Judgment. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/19/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Kenneth Lewis, #215632,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden, Evans Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:15-4288-HMH-SVH
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Kenneth Lewis (“Lewis”) is a pro se state prisoner
seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In her Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and
denying Lewis’ motions for entry of default and default judgment.
Lewis filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (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. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
1
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Lewis’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this
case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 16, is
granted. It is further
ORDERED that Lewis’ motions for entry of default, docket number 12, and for default
judgment, docket number 13, are denied. It is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Lewis has failed to make
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 19, 2016
2
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
3
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?