Reid v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This Court adopts the magistrates Report and Recommendation in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioners § 2254 petition is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 04/05/2012. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Keven Reid, #267393,
a.k.a. Kevin Lamont Reid,
Petitioner,
v.
Bernard McKie, Warden of Kirkland
Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
_________________________________________

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

C/A No.: 4:12-cv-00596-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for a review of the Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers’ Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., filed on March 8, 2012. In this
Report and Recommendation, the magistrate recommends that Petitioner’s Petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody
be dismissed without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. After a
review of the record, this Court agrees.
Petitioner brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to

Page 1 of 3

allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate 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).

This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made,
and this Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court

may also “receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions.”

Id.

In the absence of specific objections to the Report and

Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 198–99 (4th Cir. 1983). In
the instant case, Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
After reviewing the record and Report and Recommendation, this Court finds
that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case.
Therefore, this Court adopts the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its
entirety.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DISMISSED
without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Court declines to
issue a certificate of appealability in this matter.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 5, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina

6

When a district court issues a final ruling on a habeas petition, the court must issue or deny a
certificate of appealability. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 & 2255. The
Court has reviewed its order and, pursuant to Rule 11(a), declines to issue a certificate of appealability
as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Page 3 of 3