Waymer v. Bodison et al

Filing 34

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court ACCEPTS the Report 29 . Therefore, the Respondents motion for summary judgment is GRANTED 18 , and the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners motion to expand therecord is deemed MOOT 26 . Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 05/27/2011. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Troy Waymer, #153769,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Warden McKither Bodison,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 4:10-2098-TLW-TER
ORDER

Petitioner, Troy Waymer, (“petitioner”), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on August 13, 2010. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed by United States Magistrate Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had
previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Respondent’s
motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety and the petition be dismissed as time
barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. # 29). Objections to the Report were filed on April 4,
2011. (Doc. # 31). 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. # 29). Therefore, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED, (Doc. # 18), and the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner’s motion to expand the
record is deemed MOOT. (Doc. # 26).
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of
appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate
from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____
TERRY L. WOOTEN
United States District Judge

May 27, 2011
Florence, South Carolina