Rice v. Cartledge
Filing
29
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 19 . The Court adopts in full the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) as the order ofthis Court and GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19). Petitioner's habeas petitions is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/29/2015. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Douglas Lamont Rice, # 319577,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden Leroy Cartledge,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 6: 14-cv-3748-RMG
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge, recommending that Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19)
be granted and the petition be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 27). Petitioner was advised that he had a
right to submit written objections to the R & R within 14 days of service and a failure to timely
file written objections could result in limited review by the District Court and waiver of the right
to appeal the judgment of the District Court. (Id. at 36). Petitioner failed to file any written
objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modifY, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R to which objection is made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P.
neb).
However, as is the case here, where no objections are 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." Id
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific
objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir.
1983).
Petitioner was convicted in absentia in December 2006 for trafficking cocaine and was
sentenced to twenty five years in prison. Petitioner was subsequently apprehended and
incarcerated by the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought
to challenge his conviction on direct appeal and through state post conviction relief proceedings.
He thereafter timely filed a petition for habeas corpus pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising four
separate grounds for relief. On July 6,2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R which
addressing the factual and legal issues raised by Petitioner and concluded that Respondent was
entitled to summary judgment on each ground. Petitioner thereafter failed to file any written
objections.
After a careful review of the R & R, the record evidence and the applicable statutory and
case law, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the factual and legal issues in
this matter and correctly concluded that Respondent is entitled to summary judgment on each of
the four grounds raised. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) as the order of this Court and GRANTS Respondent's
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19). Petitioner's habeas petitions is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
-2
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 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 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 ofa certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark:
United States Dist ict Judge
July1.-'i,2015
Charleston, South Carolina
-3
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?