Skipper v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 54

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ACCEPTS the Report (Doc. # 44 ). Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 18 ). Petitioner's § 2254 petition is DISMISSED (Doc. # 1 ). The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/10/2015. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Ronald De’Ray Skipper,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Joseph McFadden, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-04061-TLW

ORDER
The Petitioner, Ronald De’Ray Skipper (“Petitioner”), brought this action, pro se, for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 22, 2014. (Doc. # 1). Respondent
filed a Return and Memorandum (Doc. #17) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #18) on
April 2, 2015. Petitioner filed a Response opposing Respondent’s motion on July 17, 2015. (Doc.
#36). Respondent filed a Reply to Petitioner’s response on July 29, 2015. (Doc. #42).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed on August 5, 2015 by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III,
to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (DSC). (Doc. #44). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Petitioner’s § 2254 petition be
dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. #44). Petitioner filed Objections to the
Report on September 1, 2015. (Doc. # 50).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In conducting its review, the Court therefore 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.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the 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 relevant
filings, the Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner’s objections. After careful review of the
Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #44). Respondent’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. #18). Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is
DISMISSED. (Doc. #1).
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 herein. 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
December 10, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
2