Johnson v. McFadden
Filing
89
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 81 ). It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 73 ) is DENIED. In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/2/2015. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Christopher Shannon Johnson , #350430,
aka Christopher S. Johnson
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden John Pate,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No: 5:13-cv-02038-JMC
ORDER
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), (ECF No. 81), filed on January 26, 2015, recommending Petitioner's Motion for Default
Judgment (ECF No. 73) be denied. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal
standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the magistrate judge’s recommendation herein
without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The magistrate judge makes only a
recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 Report
and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 81-1). However,
Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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, “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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 81). It is therefore ORDERED that
Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No.73) is DENIED.
Certificate of Appealability
The law governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or
2
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
March 2, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?