Mahaffey v. Stevenson

Filing 47

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 41 ), overruling Petitioner's Objection. (ECF No. 45 ). Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgement, (ECF No. 24 ), is GRANTED, and the amended petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 04/13/2016. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Johnny Earl Mahaffey,

) Civil Action No. 5:15-2727-MGL
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Warden Robert Stevenson,
)
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________ )
Petitioner Johnny Earl Mahaffey, (“Petitioner”), a self-represented state prisoner, filed the
instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for review of post-trial petitions
for relief and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On March 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, (ECF No. 41), recommending that
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 24), be granted and that the petition be
dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge’s Report granted Petitioner’s thenpending Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 37). Petitioner filed a timely Objection to the Report, (ECF
No. 45), and the matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the
Petitioner’s Objection. The Court has undertaken this de novo review, even though Petitioner’s
Objection consists largely of restatements of arguments already advanced in prior filings coupled
with inapposite legal citations and efforts to present alternate factual scenarios not supported in the
record. Nowhere in Petitioner’s Objection does he meaningfully counter any of the core legal
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, including the Magistrate Judge’s findings related to
procedural default, the non-cognizability of certain of Petitioner’s grounds for relief, and the
determination that Petitioner has failed to show that his allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel satisfy the two-prong standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 41), overruling Petitioner’s
Objection. (ECF No. 45). Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgement, (ECF No. 24), is
GRANTED, and the amended petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific
issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
-2-

28 U.S.C. § 2253©. A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims
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, 123 S.Ct. 1029,
154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); 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.
Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
April 13, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

-3-