Lowery v. SC Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting respondents' motions for summary judgment, denying petitioner's motions for summary judgment and for certificate of appealability, for 23 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on September 12, 2011. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Thomas Lowery,

#083240,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SC Department of Probation Parole and
)
Pardon Services; Cecilia Reynolds
)
Warden Ker. CI,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:10-3011-TLW-JRM

ORDER

Petitioner, Thomas Lowery, (“petitioner”), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 on November 29, 2010. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed by United States Magistrate Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had
previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Petitioner’s
motion for summary judgment be denied and that the Respondents’ motions for summary
judgment be granted. (Doc. # 23). Petitioner filed objections on July 28, 2011. (Doc. # 25). The
Respondents filed a Reply on August 8, 2011. (Doc. # 26). The Petitioner then filed a Reply and
a Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (Docs. # 27 and 28). In conducting this review, the
Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are

addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case,
the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate
judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 23). Therefore, the Respondents’ motions for summary judgment
are GRANTED (Docs. # 9 and17), Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is denied, (Doc. #
22) and the Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability is DENIED, (Doc. # 27), and the
Petition is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____
TERRY L. WOOTEN
United States District Judge

September 12, 2011
Florence, South Carolina