Ratliff v. Darlington County Clerk of Court's
ORDER finding as moot 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 07/02/2014.(dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No.:4:14-746-MGL
OPINION AND ORDER
Warden Evans Correctional Institution,
Jessie Ratliff, #336747,
Pro se Petitioner, Jessie Ratliff, an inmate in the South Carolina Department of Corrections
seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction.
(ECF No. 1.) Respondent denies Petitioner’s allegations and has filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Petitioner has responded with his own motion to dismiss his habeas
petition with prejudice. (ECF No. 25.) Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s motion. (ECF No.
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action as of right and without consent of the court
either by stipulation of all parties or unilaterally if the defendant has not yet filed an answer or
motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). Otherwise, “an action may be dismissed
at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
After careful review of the record and the applicable law, Petitioner’s motion to dismiss his
petition for habeas relief is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). As such, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is moot.
Certificate of Appealability
The law governing certificates of appealability 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 Miller–El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484,
120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
July 2, 2014
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?