Parker v. Riley

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 1/11/2017.(ssam, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION David L. Parker, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Warden, Tyger River Correctional ) Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-4846-TLW ORDER Petitioner David L. Parker (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 28, 2016. ECF No. 14. Petitioner filed a Response, ECF No. 17, and Respondent filed a Reply, ECF No. 18. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on November 14, 2016 by United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C. ECF No. 19. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the petition with prejudice. Objections were due on December 1, 2016, but Petitioner failed to file any objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for disposition. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a 1 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings, and the applicable law and notes that Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report. After careful consideration, the Court accepts the detailed factual and legal analysis by the Magistrate Judge in the Report. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report, ECF No. 19, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten_____________ TERRY L. WOOTEN Chief United States District Judge January 11, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina 2

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?