Hall v. South Carolina

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hendricks; finding as moot 14 Motion captioned "to Restrict Future Filings" and Objection to Late Conditional Order of Dismissal and Return. The P laintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an Answer or return. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 1/14/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Eddie L. Hall,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The State of South Carolina and Warden
)
Kershaw Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondents.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 2:13-cv-02526-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Jermaine Demetrius Miles (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. #1). The matter now
comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on
September 20, 2013, by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, (Doc. #9), to whom this case
was previously assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the case
without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an Answer or return. (Doc. #9). The
Magistrate Judge also recommends denying a Certificate of Appealability. (Id.). Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on October 7, 2013. (Doc. #11).In conducting this review, the Court
applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,

in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the
magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #9). The Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. (Doc. #11).
The Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file
an Answer or return. The Plaintiff’s Motion captioned “Objection To Late Conditional Order of
Dismissal and Return And Motion To Restrict Future Filings,” (Doc. #14), is deemed MOOT in
light of this order.
Additionally, the Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to
issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____s/Terry L. Wooten____
Chief United States District Judge

January 14, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina