Hill v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 22

ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 20 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks. This petition is denied. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/12/12.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Gregory L. Hill,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
Warden of Coastal Pre-Release Center,
Respondent.

C/A No.: 2:11-3409-JFA-BHH

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, Gregory L. Hill, is a prisoner currently housed at the Coastal
Pre-Release Center of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He has filed a
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his South Carolina state court
conviction for armed robbery.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment2 should
be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

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. 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, 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).
The respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment. An order was then issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying petitioner of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he
failed to adequately respond to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner responded in opposition to the motion.

2

1

Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 12, 2012. Petitioner,
however, failed to file objections and the time within which do so has now expired. In
the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not
required to given any 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, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is
proper and it fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles
of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the
§2254 petition is denied.
It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because the
petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 12, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3

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) (West 2009). 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 petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.”

2