Crawford v. Eagleton

Filing 49

ORDER affirming its previous 32 Order Adopting the Report, granting Respondent's 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment, denying the § 2254 petition, and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/15/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
DEXTER LAMONT CRAWFORD,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:12-cv-00661-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Dexter Lamont Crawford filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on March 15, 2012. (Doc. #1). Respondent filed a
motion for summary judgment on August 1, 2012 (Doc. #18), to which Petitioner filed a
response in opposition on October 12, 2012 (Doc. #27). This matter previously came before this
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case was previously assigned. (Doc. #29).
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. Petitioner’s objections
to the Report were due by February 11, 2013. After careful consideration, the Court entered an
Order adopting the Report on February 28, 2013, granting summary judgment in favor of
Respondent and denying the § 2254 petition. (Doc. #32).
The Court subsequently granted Petitioner three extensions of time in which to file
objections to the Report. (See Doc. #36, 41, 46). On December 11, 2014, Petitioner filed his
objections. (Doc. #48). The objections relate to Petitioner’s claim that the South Carolina
Department of Corrections has illegally confiscated his legal materials, thereby denying him

access to the courts and violating his first amendment rights. See id. Petitioner does not directly
address the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court grant Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. The Court has now carefully reviewed the Report, its Order adopting the
Report, and the parties’ filings in light of Petitioner’s objections. In conducting this review, the
Court has applied 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).
After careful review in accordance with this standard, the Court hereby OVERRULES
Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. #48). The Court affirms its previous order adopting the Report,
granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, denying the § 2254 petition, and declining
to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. #32).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 15, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina