Saunders v. Warden of Broad River Prison

Filing 24

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. The habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/22/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Turuk Saunders, #199803,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden, Broad River Correctional Instit.,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No 2:16-cv-1724-RMG

ORDER AND OPINION

Turuk Saunders ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on May
27,2016, seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No.1.) Respondent filed amotion
for summary judgment on August 1,2016. (Dkt. No.8; Dkt. No.9.) Petitioner filed a response in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment, to which Respondent filed a reply. (Dkt. No.
20; Dkt. No. 21.) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.")
of the Magistrate Judge to grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and deny the
habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 22.)
No objections to the R. & R. have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo review
of any portion of the R. & R. to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not
intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate absent
objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
A de novo review of the record indicates that the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of
this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate's R. & R. as the
Order of this Court. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the habeas
petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

-1­

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 of a certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

~kU

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge

February ~~, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-2­