Owens v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation of the the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 25 ] is adopted and incorporated by reference. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion for summary j udgment [ECF No. 19 ] is GRANTED and Petitioner's § 2254 petition [ECF No. 1 ] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/23/2015. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
William Allen Owens,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, )
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:14-cv-03685-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner William Allen Owens, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Petition, ECF No. 1. Respondent filed a motion
for summary judgment and a return and supporting memorandum. See ECF Nos. 18-19. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate
Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for
the District of South Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 25. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the petition with prejudice. See id. at
34.
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

1

The Magistrate Judge conducted her review of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the 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)). After a
thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the R & R of
the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 25] is adopted and incorporated by reference.
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 matter, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the
requisite showing of “the denial of a constitutional right.”
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No.
19] is GRANTED and Petitioner’s § 2254 petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner
has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, SC
June 23, 2015

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