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, )

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