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, )

Download PDF
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

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?