Boyd v. US Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 48

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 42 . 20 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by US Federal Bureau of Prisons is granted. A certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/12/2016. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James I Boyd,

) Civil Action No.: 6:15-2108-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
US Federal Bureau of Prisons,
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________ )
Petitioner James I Boyd (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this habeas relief

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”).
On September 28, 2015, Respondent US Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“Respondent”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Since Petitioner is
pro se in this matter, the Court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528
F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on September 29, 2015, advising Petitioner of the importance
of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response to
Respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 21.) In that order, Petitioner was advised of the
possible consequence of dismissal if he failed to respond adequately. Petitioner filed a
Response in Opposition on January 4, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) Magistrate Judge McDonald
considered the response along with the remainder of the parties’ submissions and the
record in this case, and recommended Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be
granted. (ECF No. 42.)

1

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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination
of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a
specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the
Report and Recommendation only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “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”) (citation omitted). The Magistrate
Judge advised Petitioner of his right to file specific objections to the Report. (ECF No.
42 at 33.) Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file objections to the Report
(ECF No. 46), but has filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on August
31, 2016.
After a thorough review of the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the
Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court
adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) by reference
into this order.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.

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 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 this 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 12, 2016
Greenville South Carolina
September 12, 2016
*****
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.

3