Grant v. Warden

Filing 40

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 36 Report and Recommendation.; granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 4/11/16.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Derrick Grant,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, Broad River Correctional
)
Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 4:15-cv-2728-PMD-TER

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s objections to United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas E. Rogers’ report and recommendation (“R & R”) (ECF Nos. 38 & 36). The
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Respondent’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 22).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The R & R has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court must conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R & R to which a specific objection is made, and it may accept,
reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in whole or in part. Id.
Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is taken as the party’s agreement with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Absent a timely,
specific objection—or as to those portions of the R & R to which no specific objection is 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Petitioner has asserted four grounds for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The
Magistrate Judge has concluded those grounds have no merit, and thus he recommends granting
summary judgment for Respondent. In his “objections,” Plaintiff has merely restated—nearly
verbatim—the grounds in his § 2254 petition. As those are not true objections, the Court will not
address them. See, e.g., Anderson v. Dobson, 627 F. Supp. 2d 619, 623 (W.D.N.C. 2007) (“An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that
term is used in this context.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
There being no proper objections to the R & R, the Court has reviewed the R & R and the
record for clear error. Seeing no substantive errors in the R & R, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that summary judgment is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections to the R & R are OVERRULED,
that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and that Petitioner’s § 2254
application is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 11, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina
______________________________________________________________________________
1.
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a
denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003) (in
order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding
that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right).

2