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)

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