Collins v. McFadden
Filing
22
ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The Court DISMISSES the habeas petition. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/2/2016.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robbie Collins, #290946,
Petitioner,
vs.
Joseph McFadden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 2: 15-cv-03378-RMG
ORDER
)
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 10), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. For
the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R and DISMISSES the habeas petition.
On August 18, 2005, Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 1). Petitioner filed an initial habeas petition challenging his conviction, which was
denied. (Dkt. No. 66 in 2: 12-cv-71O-CMC). The Fourth Circuit subsequently dismissed his
appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 88 in 2:12-cv-710
CMC).
Collins filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
on August 20, 2015. (Dkt. No.1). The petition raises two grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner's
trial counsel allegedly lied at during the initial post-conviction relief (PCR) hearing, and (2) PCR
counsel failed to challenge trial counsel with documentation that would have allegedly shown
that trial counsel was committing perjury.
The Magistrate Judge recommended summarily dismissing the habeas petition because
(1) errors in state PCR proceedings cannot serve as the bases for federal habeas relief, and (2) to
the extent that the petition seeks to challenge the 2005 murder conviction, it is an impermissible
successive petition. (Dkt. No. 10). Petitioner filed objections to the R & R on January 28,2016.
(Dkt. No. 20).
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modifY, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th CiT. 2005) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
As a preliminary matter, this is a successive habeas petition that falls under no
exceptions. Furthermore, Petitioner neither sought nor was granted permission to bring this
successive petition. But even if the petition were not successive, initial PCR errors cannot serve
as standalone bases for federal habeas relief. As the Supreme Court held in Martinez v. Ryan,
inadequate assistance of counsel claims at initial state PCR hearings may establish cause for an
otherwise procedurally defaulted claim of ineffective assistance at trial. 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1315
(2012). This means that PCR errors alone are not grounds for federal habeas relief, but may
serve as an exception for grounds that would otherwise be procedurally defaulted. This
exception is inapplicable here.
Having fully consider the R & R, the record, and the relevant legal standards, the Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge ably and accurately set forth the legal and factual issues in this
matter and correctly concluded that these claims are not cognizable on habeas review.
2
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 10) as the order of this Court and
DISMISSES the habeas petition.
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 the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this Court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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 ofa certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
February ~2016
Charleston, South Carolina
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?