Greer v. South Carolina, State of
Filing
35
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 32 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. It is therefore ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 4/17/2015.(ssam, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Harold Lee Greer, Jr., #277417,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Perry Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
______________________________
) Civil Action No.: 2:14-3502-BHH
)
)
) ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
The petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking habeas
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for a Report and Recommendation.
On January 2, 2015, the respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 21.)
Since the petitioner is pro se in this matter, the Court entered an order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on January 8, 2015, advising the
petitioner of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an
adequate response to the respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 24.) In that order, the petitioner
was advised of the possible consequence of dismissal if he failed to respond adequately.
The petitioner failed to file a response. Thus, Magistrate Judge Baker recommended that
this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 32.)
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549,
46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any
portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific
objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report and
Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence 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”) (citation omitted). The Magistrate Judge advised the
petitioner of his right to file specific objections to the Report. (ECF 32 at 3.) The petitioner
has filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on April 9, 2015.
After a thorough review of the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the
Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court
adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) by reference into
this order.
It is therefore ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
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
Greenville South Carolina
April 17, 2015
*****
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?