Harrison v. Riley
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 23 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/11/2015.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Clarence Austin Harrison
) Civil Action No.: 2:14-3801-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Tim Riley,
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________ )
The petitioner Clarence Austin Harrison (“the petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed
this habeas relief action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before
the Court on the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18). 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 pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On August 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge
Baker issued a Report recommending that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment
be granted. (ECF No. 23.) The Magistrate Judge advised the petitioner of the procedures
and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he
failed to do so. (ECF No. 23 at 21.) The petitioner was granted an extension of time to file
objections but none were filed, and the time for doing so expired on September 7, 2015.
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the district 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).
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. 23) by reference into
this order.
It is therefore ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 18) be GRANTED and the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
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
-2-
(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
September 11, 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.
-3-
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?