Cranford v. South Carolina, The State of

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 . The Report of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/28/2012. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jerry Dione Cranford,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, Manning Correctional Institution, )
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 6:12-cv-00590-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 11] regarding Petitioner Jerry Dione Cranford’s
(“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1]. Petitioner is a state
prisoner incarcerated at the Manning Correctional Institution (“MCI”) and he seeks
habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that the South Carolina Department
of Corrections has miscalculated his sentence. The Magistrate Judge’s Report, filed on
March 21, 2012, recommends that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, which the
court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged
with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
1

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Petitioner timely filed objections
[Dkt. No. 18].

Objections to the Report must be specific.

Failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Petitioner makes two objections, both of which involve a prior civil action filed
by Petitioner seeking the same relief sought in the instant case—a determination that he is
entitled to nineteen (19) months of jail time credits. In Cranford v. Kammerer, et al.,
C/A No. 6:11-2791-JMC (D.S.C Dec. 29, 2011) [Dkt. No. 15], Petitioner brought an
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MCI’s classification case worker and its
inmate grievance coordinator.

Id. at 2.

The Magistrate Judge determined that

Petitioner’s section 1983 claim was improper and that his “exclusive federal remedy is to
file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. §
2254.”
Petitioner subsequently filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
However, the Magistrate Judge’s Report finds that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his
state remedies, making this petition subject to summary dismissal. Petitioner objects to
the fact that the Magistrate Judge has dismissed Petitioner’s second request for relief,
2

arguing that the Magistrate Judge’s prior Report [Dkt. No. 11 in C/A No. 6:12-cv-00590JMC] supplied him with “permission to proceed” under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 18 in C/A
No. 6:12-cv-00590-JMC]. The prior Magistrate Judge’s Report provided Petitioner with
the proper procedure for filing his claim. There is no indication that the Magistrate Judge
gave permission for the claim to go forward. Moreover, Petitioner’s writ cannot succeed
unless it meets the threshold requirements, which the Magistrate Judge has rightly
determined it does not.
Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he has failed to
exhaust his state remedies. Petitioner disputes this, though he filed no court papers
demonstrating that he had exhausted his state court remedies. See Mallory v. Smith, 27
F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that the burden of demonstrating that state
remedies have been exhausted is on the petitioner). The Magistrate Judge took judicial
notice of evidence presented in Petitioner’s prior case, finding proof that Petitioner
participated in an administrative grievance procedure at MCI, which he then appealed to
the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”).1 However, the Magistrate Judge found no proof
that Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his claim at the ALC to a higher court. As a
result, the Magistrate Judge rightly found that Petitioner had not exhausted his state
remedies.
After a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report [Dkt. No.
1

The ALC dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the grounds that Petitioner had failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections prior to bringing
the case before the ALC.
3

11] and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1]
without prejudice.

Certificate of Appealability
The law governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific
issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

November 28, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina

4

5