Goins v. Cartledge
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33 ) as the order of this Court and GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24 ). Petitioner's habeas petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 07/23/2015. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael Goins, # 302385
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge, recommending that Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24)
be granted and the petition be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 33). Petitioner was advised that he had a
right to submit written objections to the R & R within 14 days of service and a failure to timely
file written objections could result in limited review by the District Court and waiver of the right
to appeal the judgment of the District Court. (Dkt. No. 33-1). Petitioner failed to file any written
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R to which objection is made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1»; accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, as is the case here, where no objections are made, this Court ·'.!!must '!only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. "'ill Id
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific
objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir.
This petition for habeas relief, submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenges
procedures utilized in a prison disciplinary proceeding and assistance rendered by a fellow
prisoner as a "counsel substitute" at a hearing following the filing of charges against Petitioner
for "Exhibitionism and Public Masturbation." After a careful review of the R & R, the record
evidence and relevant legal authorities, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably and
thoroughly addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that the
Respondent was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33) as the order
of this Court and GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24).
Petitioner's habeas petitions is DISMISSED with prejudice.
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 the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this Court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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 (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.
United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
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?