Tedder v. Leath Correctional Institution

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 . The Respondents motion for summary judgment, docket number 12, is granted and the petition, docket number 1, is denied. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 7/25/2017. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jacqueline Tedder,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden, Leath Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 6:16-2554-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Jacqueline Tedder (“Tedder”) is a pro se
state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends granting Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment and denying Tedder’s petition because the petition is untimely and she has
failed to demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling.
Tedder filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation 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.

1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
1

1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, 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).
Upon review, the court finds that Tedder’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate her
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this
case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 12, is
granted and the petition, docket number 1, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Tedder has failed to make
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
July 25, 2017

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Petitioner is hereby notified that she has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

2