James v. Warden Edgefield FCI
ORDER RULING ON 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, 8 Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Warden Edgefield FCI. It is ordered that respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the petition is dismissed. It is further ordered, that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted as the order of this Court. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 08/22/2017. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Earl Anthony James,
Warden Edgefield FCI,
) C.A. #6:16-3246-PMD
This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that respondent’s
motion for summary judgment be granted. The record includes the report and recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Because
petitioner is pro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.1
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate
judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have
been filed to the magistrate judge's report.
Further, on December 1, 2009, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts were amended to require a District Court to issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when a final ruling on a habeas petition is issued. 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters and
submit findings and recommendations to this Court.
(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 the district court is likewise debateable. 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.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this
case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is ordered that
respondent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the petition is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDERED, that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted
as the order of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 22, 2017
Charleston, 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?