Robinson v. Cartledge

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 25 . After a thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set forth in the Order, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), which is incorpor ated within this order by reference. Accordingly, the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Thus, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Furthermore, this court will not issue a certificate of appealability Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/27/2017. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Dayquan Robinson,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden Cartledge,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:17-00133-TMC-KFM
ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, who seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner filed this Petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 1). On March
21, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) and a Return and
Memorandum to the Petition (ECF No. 13). Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition of
Respondent’s motion (ECF No. 21) and Respondent filed a reply (ECF No. 23). 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 a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment be granted and that the Petition be denied. (ECF No. 25). Petitioner was
notified of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 25 at 15). However, Petitioner filed
no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
1

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 25), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.
Thus, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find both that this constitutional claims are debatable and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In the instant
matter, the court finds that the petitioner failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” Accordingly, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
December 27, 2017

2