Dingle v. Stevenson
Filing
51
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court overrules the petitioner's objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's 46 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorp orated herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34 ) is GRANTED and the petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/27/2015. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ronald Donald Dingle,
) Civil Action No.: 4:13-2487-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Warden, Robert M. Stevenson,
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________ )
The petitioner Ronald Donald Dingle (“the petitioner” or “Dingle”), proceeding pro se,
filed this writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within action was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pretrial handling and a Report
and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends that the respondent’s
motion for summary judgment be granted and the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus be denied. (ECF No. 46.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the Court incorporates them without
recitation.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner filed this action against the respondent on September 10, 2013,1
alleging inter alia that his guilty plea was unconstitutional and ineffective assistance of
counsel.
1
On September 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and
This filing date reflects that the envelope containing the petition was stamped as having
been received on September 10, 2013, by the BRCI (Broad River Correctional Institution)
mailroom. (ECF No.1-2.) Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding prisoner's pleading is
considered filed when given to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court).
Recommendation recommending that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 34) be granted and the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (ECF
No. 46 at 32.) On September 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed Objections along with several
exhibits. (ECF No. 48.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir.1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation which the Court has carefully reviewed. However, petitioner’s objections,
while verbose, provide no basis for this Court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge's
-2-
recommended disposition. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the respondent’s
motion for summary judgment because the none of the issues raised by petitioner amount
to error.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s
objections and has made a de novo review of the entire Report and Recommendation and
finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the
correct principles of law. Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections have no merit
and are hereby overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules the
petitioner’s objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is
incorporated herein by reference. It is therefore
ORDERED that respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is
GRANTED and the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c) (2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c) (3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong
and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See
-3-
Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). In this case, the legal standard for
the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of
appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 27, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
-4-
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?