Robinson v. The State of South Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services et al

Filing 40

ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendation; granting SCDPPPS' 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Warden's 32 Motion to Dismiss; and dismissing petition with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/13/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION John C. Robinson, Petitioner, v. The State of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, and Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:16-3324-TMC ORDER Petitioner John C. Robinson, 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 the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services’ (“SCDPPPS”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) be granted; Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution’s (“Warden”) First Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) be granted; and Petitioner’s petition be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 38). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 38 at 10). 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 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 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 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. 38) and incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, SCDPPPS’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; Warden’s First Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED, and this habeas petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. 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 July 13, 2017 Anderson, South Carolina 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?