Spigner v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 47

AMENDED ORDER: re 43 Order Ruling on Report and Recommendation. After a thorough review of the applicable law, the record in this case, and the Report, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23 ) is GRANTED, and the habeas petition is DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 06/05/2015. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Patrick Spigner,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 4:14-3570-TMC

AMENDED ORDER

Petitioner Patrick Spigner, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 24, 2015, the magistrate judge
assigned to this case filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the
court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the petition without an
evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 35). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 35-1.) Following the grant of a motion for an extension, the objections were
due May 28, 2015. (ECF No. 38). On June 3, 2015, after not having received any objections, the
court entered an order adopting the Report and dismissing the action. (ECF No. 43). On June 4,
2015, the court received Petitioner’s objections. (ECF No. 46). The prison mailroom stamped
the objections as having been received on June 1, 2015. (ECF No. 46-1 at 1). However,
Petitioner’s objections were notarized on May 27, 2015. (ECF No. 46 at 2). Giving the
Petitioner the benefit of the doubt, the court has considered Petitioner’s objections.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In
the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather,
1

“in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review,
but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
In his objections, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
request a competency hearing and that his due process rights were violated because a mentally
incompetent person cannot waive his rights. (Objections at 1). He elaborates that his trial counsel
was deficient because Petitioner did not have a high school education and had never encountered
the criminal justice system before, and there is a reasonable probability that he would have been
found incompetent. (Objections at 2). As the magistrate judge determined, this issue was
procedurally barred and, moreover, Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that he was not
competent at the time of his plea.

(Report at 17 and n.4).

Accordingly, the court finds

Petitioner’s objections to be without merit.
After a thorough review of the applicable law, the record in this case, and the Report, the
court finds no clear error. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
23) is GRANTED, and the habeas petition is DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas relief
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district
court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court finds that the petitioner has failed

2

to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 5, 3015
Anderson, South Carolina

3