Slocumb v. Riley
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. The federal Petition in this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for the failure of Petitioner to exhaust his state court remedies. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/21/2017.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Conrad L. Slocumb, a/k/a Conrad Lamont
) Civil Action No.: 3:16-3769-BHH
OPINION AND ORDER
Warden Tim Riley, SCDC,
Petitioner Conrad L. Slocumb (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this habeas relief
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Bristow Marchant, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
On June 6, 2017, Respondent Warden Tim Riley, SCDC (“Respondent”), filed a motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) Since Petitioner is pro se in this matter, the Court entered an order
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on June 12, 2017, advising
Petitioner of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate
response to Respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 17.) In that order, Petitioner was advised of the
possible consequence of dismissal if he failed to respond adequately. Petitioner filed a
response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.) Magistrate Judge
Marchant considered the parties’ submissions and the record in this case, and recommended
that this federal Petition be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the Petitioner to exhaust
his state court remedies. (ECF No. 20.)1
The scrivener’s error of Respondent’s name in the caption of the Report does not affect the
correct procedural history, discussion, and analysis as it pertains to this case as captioned above.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with
the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a 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”) (citation omitted). The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of his right to file
specific objections to the Report. (ECF No. 31-1.) Petitioner filed no objections and the time
for doing so expired on February 21, 2017.
After a thorough review of the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The
federal Petition in this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for the failure of Petitioner to
exhaust his state court remedies.
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
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which
specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this Court’s assessment of his constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling by this 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
Greenville South Carolina
July 21, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?