Robinson v. Riley et al

Filing 54

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court ACCEPTS the Report(Doc. # 44 ). The Petitioners objections are OVERRULED. (Docs. # 46 , 51 .)Accordingly, Respondents motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 33 ) is GRANTED and Petitioners motion for relief pursuant to § 2254 (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 02/26/2014. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Steven A. Rollinson,

C/A No. 4:12-cv-03259-TLW

PETITIONER
v.
Order

Tim Riley, Warden, Tyger River Correctional
Institution,
RESPONDENT

Petitioner Steven A. Rollinson, proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1.) On July 3, 2013, Respondent filed a
motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #33.) Petitioner filed a one-page response to the motion.
(Doc. #42.)

On November 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Rogers filed a Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. #44), recommending granting the motion for summary
judgment. Petitioner filed objections on December 2, 2013. (Docs. #46, 51). This matter is now
ripe for decision.
In reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, 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.
1

Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of 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 the objections, the Court ACCEPTS
the Report. (Doc. #44.) The Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. (Docs. #46, 51.)
Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #33) is GRANTED and
Petitioner’s motion for relief pursuant to § 2254 (Doc. #1) is DENIED. This action is hereby
DISMISSED.
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 in this petition. 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
Chief United States District Judge
February 26, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2