Odom v. Director Charleston County Detention Center
ORDER AND OPINION: This Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15 ) as the order of the Court. The habeas petition is dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/23/2017. (prou, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CUORWD CLERK'S OFFICE
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
1011 AUG 2~ 1 A 7: l+l
Director, Charleston County Detention
Case No.: 5:l 7-cv-1906-RMG-KDW
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 15) recommending that this Court dismiss Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. §
2241 habeas petition without prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the
R. & R. (Dkt. No. 15) as the order of the Court. The habeas petition is dismissed without
a. Pro Se Pleadings
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the
development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal
claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. See Weller v. Dep 't ofSocial Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
Where the Petitioner fails to file any specific objections, "a district court need not conduct a de
nova 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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
Petitioner is a local pre-trial detainee at the Charleston County Detention Center
appearing pro se. He filed a one-page petition in this case alleging that he was charged with a
crime 1 in violation of his Miranda rights in April 2015 and that he has been the victim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Magistrate has provided a thorough summary
of the facts of this case, so the Court need not repeat them in detail here. (Dkt. No. 15 at 1-2.)
In Younger v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court should
not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings "except in the most narrow and
extraordinary of circumstances." Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The
Younger Court noted that courts of equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate
remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. Younger, 401 U.S. at
43-44. In the Fourth Circuit, abstention is appropriate when "(1) there are ongoing state judicial
proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate
A Charleston County court records serach shows that Petitioner has been charged with robbery and has
http://j cmsweb. charlestoncounty.org/Publiclndex/CaseDetails.aspx?County= 1O&CourtAgency=10001 &C
opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings." Martin Marietta Corp. v. Md.
Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Middlesex County
Ethics Comm 'n v. Garden State Bar Ass 'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). The Magistrate explained
in the R. & R. that Petitioner is precluded from federal habeas relief at this time because his state
proceedings are ongoing, he has several avenues by which to pursue his claims in state court
both during and after trial, and the proceedings implicate an important state interest. (Dkt. No. 15
at 4-5.) There are no special circumstances that justify federal review because there are
procedures in place to protect Petitioner's constitutional rights. (Id. at 5.)
Petitioner has filed Objections with the Court that are nonsensical even when given the
most liberal construction possible. (Dkt. No. 22.) The Court has reviewed these Objections and
determined that Petitioner has not filed any Objections that are specific to the Magistrate's R. &
R. For this reason, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record. The Court finds that the Magistrate has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts
of this case.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 15) as the order of
the Court. The habeas petition is dismissed without prejudice.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which
specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 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.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
Ll , 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?