Johnson v. State of SC, The
ORDER finding as moot 43 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; finding as moot 44 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming 35 Report and Recommendation. The petition is dismissed as untimely under the AEDPA. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 3/9/2015.(eric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Talvin Johnson, #323094,
Warden, Lee Correctional Institution,
C/A No. 2:14-cv-0768 DCN
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely under the AEDPA.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate
judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend
for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas
v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections
to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those
objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984),
cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984 ).1 No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s
In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant
must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's
report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice
must be 'sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him
of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had
to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate
level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.
report and recommendation. Petitioner filed two motions for judgment on the pleadings
on March 5, 2015 (ECF Nos. 43 and 44).
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately
summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is AFFIRMED, and the petition is DISMISSED as untimely under the AEDPA.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions are deemed MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because
petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
March 9, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?