Baker v. Wilson et al
Filing
115
OPINION AND ORDER The Court adopts and incorporates the 113 Report and Recommendation by reference into this Order. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent's 18 , 19 , 106 and 107 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the habeas petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 03/04/2020.(hada, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Roshod Baker,
v.
Warden McKendley Newton,
)
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent. )
)
Civil Action No. 2:15-489-BHH
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Roshod Baker (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this habeas relief action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF Nos. 1 & 85.) 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 July 13, 2015, Warden Leroy Cartledge–then Respondent, since replaced by Warden
McKendley Newton (“Respondent”), filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a return
and memorandum. (ECF Nos. 18 & 19.) Since 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 July 16,
2015, advising Petitioner of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to
file an adequate response to Respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 20.) In that Order, Petitioner was
advised of the possible consequence of dismissal if he failed to respond adequately. Petitioner
filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on August 31, 2015. (ECF
No. 26.) On August 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Baker granted Petitioner’s request to stay this
action while Petitioner’s PCR appeal was resolved in State court. (ECF No. 23.) After the State
Court of Appeals denied certiorari, the Magistrate Judge lifted the stay on January 11, 2019.
(ECF No. 62.) Magistrate Judge Baker granted Petitioner’s request to amend his petition and
he filed the amended petition on April 8, 2019. (ECF No. 85.) On May 31, 2019, Respondent
filed an amended answer to the petition and an amended motion for summary judgment. (ECF
Nos. 106 & 107.) Petitioner filed a response on July 8, 2019 (ECF No. 112), at which point this
matter was ripe for review. Magistrate Judge Baker considered the parties’ submissions and
the record in this case, and recommended that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF Nos. 18, 19, 106, 107) be granted and the habeas petition be dismissed with prejudice.
(ECF No. 113.)
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 (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 Petitioner of his right to file
specific objections to the Report. (ECF No. 113 at 30.) Petitioner filed no objections and the
time for doing so expired on February 17, 2020.
After review of the record, 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. 113) by reference into this Order. It is therefore ORDERED that
2
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 106, 107) is GRANTED, and
the habeas petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
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 to be debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling by this 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 4, 2020
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?