Collins v. Wilson
Filing
48
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendation; granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 32 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 33 Motion to Strike; denying 34 Motion for Hearing. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/30/2015.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Steven Collins,
) Civil Action No.: 2:14-1200-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Leroy Cartledge,
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________ )
The petitioner Steven Collins (“the petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Wallace W. Dixon for pretrial handling and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”]. Judge Dixon recommends that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment
be granted, that the petitioner’s motions to strike and amend be granted, that the
petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary haring be denied, and this matter be dismissed with
prejudice. (ECF No. 38.) The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter and the court incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner filed this action against the respondent on March 27, 2014,1 alleging,
inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. On November 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge
issued his Report and the Clerk of Court entered the petitioner’s Objections on February
1
This filing date reflects that the envelope containing the petition was stamped as having
been received on March 27, 2014, by the MCCI (McCormick Correctional Institution) mailroom.
(ECF No.1-1.) Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding prisoner's pleading is considered
filed when given to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court).
5, 2015. (ECF No. 58). The court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be
without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir.1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report,
which the court has carefully reviewed. However, the petitioner’s objections, although
verbose, provide no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge's
recommended disposition. Instead, they generally consist of nothing more than arguments
that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Because the court agrees
-2-
with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on these issues, it need not repeat the discussion
here.
To the extent that the petitioner argues that he is able to overcome the procedural
bar such that this court can review his § 2254 claims, the court rejects the argument. As
the Magistrate Judge noted in his Report,
Generally, a federal habeas court should not review the merits
of claims that would be found to be procedurally defaulted (or
barred) under independent and adequate state procedural
rules. For a procedurally defaulted claim to be properly
considered by a federal habeas court, the Petitioner must
demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a
result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate
that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental
miscarriage of justice.
(ECF 38 at 14). Because the petitioner has demonstrated neither cause, prejudice, nor a
fundamental miscarriage of justice, the court is unable to consider his procedurally
defaulted claims. For these reasons, the court will overrule the petitioner’s objections.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules the
petitioner’s objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Report herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED, the petitioner’s pending motions to strike and amend
(ECF No. 32, 33) are GRANTED, the petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No.
34) is DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c) (2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c) (3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong
and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 this case, the legal standard for
the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 30, 2015
Greenville, 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.
-4-
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?