Seich v. Cartledge

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court adopts the R & R, grants Cartledge's summary judgment motion, denies Seich's rule to show cause motion, and dismisses Seichs § 2254 petition with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 03/29/2017. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
William Charles Seich, #282200,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Larry Cartledge,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 5:16-cv-2464-PMD-KDW

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Seich’s objections to United States Magistrate Judge
Kaymani D. West’s report and recommendation (“R & R”) (ECF Nos. 33 & 30). The Magistrate
Judge recommends granting Cartledge’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 24) and denying
Seich’s rule to show cause motion (ECF No. 18).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The R & R has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court must conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R & R to which a timely, specific objection is made, and the Court
may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in whole or
in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is taken as the party’s
agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Absent a timely, specific objection—or as to those portions of the R & R to which no specific
objection is made—this Court “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 & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Pro se filings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Gordon
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and federal district courts must construe such
pleadings liberally to allow the development of potentially meritorious claims, see Hughes v.
Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam). The liberal construction requirement, however, does
not mean courts can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth claims cognizable in
federal district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Cartledge’s motion for summary judgment
because Seich filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition after the expiration of 28 U.S.C. § 2244’s oneyear statute of limitations. In his objection, Seich discusses several issues but raises only one
objection to the R & R: that his § 2254 petition was timely because he was entitled to equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly analyzed Seich’s equitable
tolling argument and found that it lacked merit. Seich’s objection to that conclusion merely
restates his argument. As that objection is not proper, the Court overrules it. See, e.g., Anderson
v. Dobson, 627 F. Supp. 2d 619, 623 (W.D.N.C. 2007) (stating an objection “that merely restates
the arguments previously presented” or “does nothing more than state a disagreement with a
magistrate’s suggested resolution” is not sufficient to trigger de novo review (citation and
quotation marks omitted)). Seich’s other “objections” restate arguments he made before the
Magistrate Judge about the merits of his case. Those objections are unrelated to the Magistrate
Judge’s R & R and are therefore irrelevant. The Court has reviewed the R & R for clear error
and finds none.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Seich’s lone cognizable objection is OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R & R, GRANTS Cartledge’s summary judgment motion,
DENIES Seich’s rule to show cause motion, and DISMISSES Seich’s § 2254 petition with
prejudice. 1
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 29, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

1.
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a
denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003) (in
order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding
that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right).