Ivey v. South Carolina, State of
Filing
21
ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation; granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing petition with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/29/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Rodney Dale Ivey, #324929,
C/A No. 1:16-1037-JFA
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden of Kirkland Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
Rodney Dale Ivey (“Ivey”) filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 while confined at Kirkland Correctional Institution of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. Ivey alleges that his Constitutional rights have been violated based
on a single ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1).
The Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on June 21, 2016. (ECF No. 12).
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this Court advised Ivey of the
summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
adequately respond to the Respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 14). Ivey filed a timely response on
July 12, 2016. (ECF No. 16). The Respondent filed a reply in opposition to Ivey’s response on
July 14, 2016. (ECF No. 17).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should grant the Respondent’s motion for
1
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,
summary judgment. (ECF No. 18). 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.
Ivey was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on
August 31, 2016. However, Ivey failed to file any objections to the Report. 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
Recommendation, GRANTS the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) and
denies Ivey’s petition.
Further, because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 29, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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).
2
A certificate of appealability will not issue 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); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In the instant
matter, the court finds that the defendant has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”
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?