Matthews v. Cohen

Filing 36

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 30 ), overruling Petitioner's Objection,(ECF No. 32 ). Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 23 ), is GRANTED and Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17 ), and Motion to Consolidate Cases, (ECF No. 33 ), are terminated as MOOT. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 09/21/2015. (dsto)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James Matthews,

) Civil Action No. 4:14-4538-MGL
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Levern Cohen, Warden,
)
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________ )
Petitioner James Matthews, (“Petitioner”), an inmate in the custody of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers
for review of post-trial petitions for relief and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On July 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, (ECF No. 30), recommending that
the Court grant Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 23), and that Petitioner’s
Petition be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report on August 7, 2015,
(ECF No. 32), and the matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the
Petitioner’s Objection. The Court finds that no where in Petitioner’s four-paragraph filing does he
meaningfully counter the core conclusion of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, specifically, the finding
that Petitioner filed the instant action well outside the one year limitation period for § 2254 petitions.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 30), overruling Petitioner’s
Objection. (ECF No. 32). Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 23), is
GRANTED and Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. Petitioner’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), and Motion to Consolidate Cases, (ECF No.
33), are terminated as MOOT.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific
issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253© . 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029,
-2-

154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); 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/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
September 21, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

-3-