Rogers v. Warden McCormick Correctional Institution

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner's § 2254 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/6/2016.(ssam, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Cornelius Antwan Rogers,

Civil Action No.: 2:15-2341-BHH

Petitioner,
vs.
Opinion and Order
Warden of McCormick Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.

Petitioner, Cornelius Antwan Rogers (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this
application for a 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(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the action
was referred to United States Magistrate Mary Gordon Baker, for pretrial handling and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Magistrate Judge Baker recommends that
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Petitioner’s § 2254
petition be dismissed. (ECF No. 25.) The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and standards of law on this matter and the Court incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed this action against Respondent alleging that his equal protection
rights were violated. (ECF No. 1-3 at 6.) On June 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report. (ECF No. 35.) On July 5, 2016, Petitioner filed his Objections (ECF
No. 27), to which Respondent replied on July 7, 2016 (ECF No. 28). Having carefully
reviewed the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately and
adequately summarized the disputed and undisputed facts relevant to this action. The

Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will
enter judgment accordingly.1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report 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). 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).
In reviewing these pleadings, the Court is mindful of Petitioner’s pro se status.
When dealing with a pro se litigant, the Court is charged with liberal construction of the
pleadings. See, e.g., De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). The
requirement of a liberal construction does not mean, however, that the Court can
ignore a petitioner’s clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim, or that

1
As always, the Court says only what is necessary to address Petitioner’s objections against the already
meaningful backdrop of a thorough Report of the Magistrate Judge, incorporated entirely by specific
reference, herein, to the degree not inconsistent. Exhaustive recitation of law and fact exists there.

2

the Court must assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012).
DISCUSSION
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s
objection, which alleges that Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling because of his
“lack of knowledge for the law and the ways in which it maneuvers,” is unavailing.2
(ECF No. 27 at 1.)  “Courts in this circuit have held that extraordinary circumstances
warranting equitable tolling do not include unfamiliarity with the legal process and
inadequacy of the prison law library.” Pinckney v. McFadden, No. 6:14-4274-MGL,
2015 WL 3871876, at *7 (D.S.C. June 22, 2015) (citing United States v. Sosa, 364
F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2004); Garvin v. Eagleton, No. 8:12–1165–JMC, 2013 WL
3821482, at *13 (D.S.C. July 23, 2013) (“alleged inadequacies of prison law libraries do
not toll the statute of limitations”)). Accordingly, the objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons
stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections,
adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and
Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2
The Court can discern no other specific objections to the Report in Petitioner’s brief, only meritless,
confusing statements. (ECF No. 27 at 1–5.)

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 in 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 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. 2011). 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 6, 2016
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