Robinson v. South Carolina

Filing 19

ORDER 16 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying as moot 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 2/8/2016.(ssam, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
John Thomas Robinson,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________)

Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-02937-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner John Thomas Robinson, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. The matter is now before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 16. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Petitioner has failed to prosecute
the case and has failed to comply with court orders. R & R at 1.
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 this Court.
See 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 R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the
absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).
Furthermore, a certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies
relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate (1) the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable and (2) the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529
U.S. at 484-85. In the instant case, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite
showing of “the denial of a constitutional right.”
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 16] of the Magistrate Judge. IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to
prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b),
and that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 11] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has not made
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

Florence, South Carolina
February 8, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

3