Lomax v. State of South Carolina
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 43 ) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32 ) is GRANTED, and the Petition is DENIED. To the extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that certificate is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 12/14/2016. (mcot, ) Modified on 12/14/2016 to replace main document with corrected document as directed by Chambers (mcot, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CARIUS KENTA LOMAX,
WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL
Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-00398-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING THE PETITION
This action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is before the Court for review of
the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the Petition be denied. The Report
was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of
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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 21, 2016, ECF No. 43, but Plaintiff
failed to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the
Petition is DENIED.
To the extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that
certificate is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 14th day of December 2016 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from
the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?