Lee v. Cartledge

Filing 33

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 29 . It is therefore ORDERED that Respondents motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Petitioners § 2254 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/25/2016. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Billy Nathan Lee, #229707,

Civil Action No.: 6:15-1603-BHH

Petitioner,
vs.
Opinion and Order
Leory Cartledge, Warden,
Respondent.

Petitioner, Billy Nathan Lee, (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the action
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, for pretrial
handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Magistrate Judge McDonald
recommends that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and
Petitioner’s § 2254 petition be dismissed. (ECF No. 29.) The Report and
Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter and the Court incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed this action against Respondent alleging, inter alia, ineffective
assistance of counsel. On December 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report;
and on December 17, 2015, Petitioner filed his Objections. (ECF No. 31.) Having
carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately
and adequately summarized the disputed and undisputed facts relevant to this action.

The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it
will enter judgment accordingly.1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the district court. 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 objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the
absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are
reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge first found that Ground One failed on the merits and the
Court agrees. Ground One alleges that the trial court erred by denying Petitioner’s
request for jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter during his trial. (ECF 1 at 5.) In
his exceptionally thorough thirty-nine page Report, the Magistrate Judge engaged in a

1

As always, the Court says only what is necessary to address Petitioner’s objections against the already
meaningful backdrop of a thorough Report of the Magistrate Judge, incorporated entirely by specific
reference, herein, to the degree not inconsistent. Exhaustive recitation of law and fact exists there.

2

thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of this claim. He correctly found that “federal
habeas relief is not . . . warranted on the matter of whether the trial court appropriately
refused to charge involuntary manslaughter because the petitioner’s trial for murder
was not a capital (death penalty) case.” (ECF No. 29 at 15.) See Stewart v. Warden of
Lieber Corr. Inst., 701 F. Supp. 2d 785, 793 (D.S.C. 2010) (“Accordingly, this Court
declines to find that due process requires an involuntary manslaughter instruction in
this case. Thus, the Court finds that the state court’s decision not to charge on the
lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter was not contrary to nor an unreasonable
application of clearly established Federal law as decided by the United States Supreme
Court, and the Court rejects the Petitioner’s claim.”); cf. Bates v. Lee, 308 F.3d 411,
418 (4th Cir. 2002) (“The decision of whether there is enough evidence to justify a
lesser included offense charge rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).
The Magistrate Judge then addressed Ground Two, which alleges several
claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1-1.) He found that all but one
claim were procedurally barred and the Court agrees. The Magistrate Judge discussed
each procedurally barred claim in exhaustive detail, finding that even on the merits, the
rulings of the state court were reasonable and Petitioner failed to carry his burden of
establishing counsel was ineffective as required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
886 (1984), and its progeny. (ECF No. 29 at 22–38.) In the same comprehensive
manner, the Magistrate Judge addressed the one ineffective assistance of counsel
claim subject to review on the merits, correctly finding that the ruling of the state court

3

was reasonable and that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing counsel
was ineffective as required by Strickland and its progeny. (Id. at 19–21.)
Petitioner’s objections consist of nothing more than arguments that the
Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Thus, the Court is tasked only
with review of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions for clear error. Because the Court
agrees with the cogent analysis by the Magistrate Judge, it need not discuss those
same issues for a second time here. Therefore, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s
objections.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are without merit and the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions evince no clear error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and by the
Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections and adopts the Report
and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is
DISMISSED with 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 constitutional right.
(c) (3) The certificate of appealability. . . shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required in paragraph (2).

4

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. 2011).
In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not
been met. Therefore, a certificate of deniability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 25, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

5