Jefferson v. Warden of Lee Correctional Institution

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 47 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, Respondent's 24 Motion for summary judgment is granted. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/18/14. (kmca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Richard A. Jefferson, Petitioner, vs. Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent. _______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 8:13-593-JFA-JDA ORDER The pro se petitioner, Richard A. Jefferson, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1989 convictions for murder and other crimes. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment2 should be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 2 An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying petitioner of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner responded to the motion. 1 Recommendation which was entered on the docket on February 7, 2013. Neither party filed objections to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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). The Magistrate Judge opines that the petition is untimely by approximately sixteen years and that the petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. This court agrees. After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24) is granted. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).3 3 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) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his 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); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that the defendant has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge March 18, 2014 Columbia, South Carolina 3

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?