Thompson v. McFadden

Filing 50

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48 ) of the Magistrate Judge which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judg ment (ECF No. 28 ) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44 ) is DENIED. Petitioner's Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/29/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Branson Jamal Thompson,
Petitioner,
v.
Joseph McFadden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:15-1568-TMC

ORDER

Branson Jamal Thompson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed this pro se Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civ. Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 48). The
magistrate judge recommends that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 28)
be granted, and Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) be denied. Id.
Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).

1

After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 44) is DENIED. Petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
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). 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); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
In the instant matter, the court finds that Petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right." Accordingly, the court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

April 29, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

2