Teal v. South Carolina

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's R & R (ECF No. 28 ). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19 ) and DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2254 petition with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/17/2016. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Pamela Marie Teal,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, Camille Graham
)
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-04477-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner Pamela Marie Teal, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. The matter is now
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas E. Rogers, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for
the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 28. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss Petitioner’s § 2254 petition
without an evidentiary hearing. R & R at 22.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
1

Objections to the R & R were due by September 29, 2016. ECF No. 28.

absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The
Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note)).
Furthermore, a certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies
relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate (1) the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable and (2) the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529
U.S. at 484-85. In the instant case, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite
showing of “the denial of a constitutional right.”
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 28]. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 19] and DISMISSES
Petitioner’s § 2254 petition with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has not made “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
October 17, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

3