Landron v. South Carolina, State of
Filing
36
ORDER Adopting 33 Report and Recommendation. The Respondent's 27 Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Petitioner's 16 Motion for relief is DENIED. In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/16/13. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Tyri Landron,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden of Livesay Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 6:13-832-TMC
ORDER
The petitioner is an inmate at the Fairfield County Detention Center and is seeking
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant the respondent’s
motion for summary judgment and dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 33.) The petitioner was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 33 at 8.) However, the petitioner
has not filed objections, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of
objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
1
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina, this matter was initially referred to a magistrate judge.
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court finds no clear error and,
therefore, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference. Thus, the respondent’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED, and the petitioner’s motion for
relief (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas relief
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district
court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court finds that the petitioner has failed
to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
December 16, 2013
Anderson, 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?