Cambron v. Knowlin

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting respondent's motion to dismiss and denying a certificate of appealability, for 24 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on November 26, 2012. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Jason A. Cambron,
Petitioner,
vs.
Gregory Knowlin, Warden of Turbeville
Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:12-cv-1919-RMG

ORDER

Petitioner Jason A. Cambron, an inmate at the Turbeville Correctional Institution of the
South Carolina Department of Corrections at the time of his original filing, petitioned pro se and
in forma pauperis for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No.1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this case
was automatically referred to a Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings.
Background

On October 18,2012, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 18). On October
19,2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro order instructing Petitioner on the importance
of replying to Respondent's motion to dismiss and directing Petitioner to reply to that dispositive
motion within thirty-four (34) days. (Dkt. No. 20).
On October 26, 2012, the Roseboro order sent by the Magistrate Judge to the Petitioner
was returned to the Court marked "Unknown at this Address, Return to Sender, Released 10-1­
12." (Dkt. No. 23). A previous order granting Respondent's motion for an extension was also

returned to the Court as undeliverable and also bore the word "Released" handwritten on it.
(Dkt. No. 16).
On October 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
("R&R"), in which he recommended dismissing the petition unless Petitioner timely objected to
the R&R, notified the Court that he wished to continue this case, and provided a current address
to the Court. (Dkt. No. 24 at 3). The Magistrate Judge also advised Petitioner of the procedures
and requirement for filing objections to the R&R and the serious consequences of failing to do
so, including the specific admonition that failure to file objections to the R&R would result in
waiver of his right of appeal. (Dkt. No. 24 at 4).
Discussion

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). Where the Petitioner fails to file any
specific objections, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge accurately set forth the facts of this case and the
controlling case law. He recommended dismissal unless Petitioner filed an objection to the
R&R, notified the Court of his desire to continue this case, or provided a current address to the
Court. To date, Petitioner has done none of these. Indeed, upon reviewing the record, it appears
from the two pieces of Court mail that have been returned undelivered that Petitioner was
released from Turbeville Correctional Institution on or about October 1, 2012.

Conclusion
The Court, having fully reviewed the record, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation and the applicable case law, hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation as
the Order of the Court. Therefore, Respondent's motion for dismissal is GRANTED, and the
petition is DISMISSED.
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.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

November"2(?, 20 12
Charleston, South Carolina