Gray v. Stevenson
OPINION AND ORDER. Accordingly, the court affirms its Opinion and Order 61 entered February 15, 2012. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 02/28/2012. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Noel Gray, #307590,
Warden Robert M. Stevenson,
C/A NO. 4:11-227-CMC-TER
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se application for writ of habeas corpus,
filed in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On February 15, 2012, the undersigned granted summary judgment to Respondent and
dismissed this matter with prejudice. ECF No. 61. On February 27, 2012, the Clerk received
objections from Petitioner, which were given to prison authorities on February 24, 2012. ECF No.
65-2 at 1. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner filings given to prison authorities
deemed filed as of the date placed in prison mail system).1
The objections are untimely. However, out of an abundance of caution, after conducting a
de novo review as to the objections made, and considering the record, the applicable law, and the
On the same date these objections were received by the Clerk for filing, Petitioner filed a
Notice of Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. See ECF No. 66 (filed Feb. 27, 2012). “The
filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers jurisdiction on the
court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved
in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). However, an
exception to this general rule is that “a district court does not lose jurisdiction to proceed as to
matters in aid of the appeal.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal, 947 F.2d 1188, 1190 (4th
Cir.1991) (citations omitted). To this end, then, the court believes it retains jurisdiction to review
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court affirms its earlier ruling that
Respondent is entitled to summary judgment. Petitioner’s objections fail to show how the Report
and Recommendation erred in its analysis or conclusion that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally
defaulted in this court.2
Accordingly, the court affirms its Opinion and Order entered February 15, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
February 28, 2012
Petitioner indicates that “On February 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation Decision, hereinafter, “Report”. . . . The Report recommends that Gray’s habeas
corpus petition be dismissed based on an analysis that Petitioner’s six (6) claims for relief are
procedurally defaulted.” Obj. at 1 (ECF No. 65, filed Feb. 27, 2012). However, it appears Petitioner
was aware that the filing made by this court on February 15, 2012, was an order dismissing this
matter with prejudice, as he filed a contemporaneous Notice of Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals. See ECF No. 66 (filed Feb. 27, 2012).
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?