Thompson v. Taylor et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation 13 and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/18/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Samuel Thompson, Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden Taylor; and S.C. Attorney General,
Respondents.
____________________________________

) C/A No. 5:14-2406-JFA-KDW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

The pro se petitioner, Samuel Thompson, Jr., brings this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He
appears to have pending a state Post-Conviction Relief Application challenging his 2013
state court conviction and sentence.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she opines that the petition is subject to summary dismissal
because the petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. The Report sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates
such without a recitation.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 the court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. However, the petitioner did not file objections to the Report and the time
within which to do so has expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and incorporates
it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because the
petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

September 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
2

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) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 the instant matter, the court finds that the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.”

2