Sullivan v. Cartledge

Filing 40

ORDER adopting 32 Report and Recommendation. Respondent's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the 1 petition is DENIED. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/13/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Dwight F. Sullivan,
Petitioner,
v.
Leroy Cartledge, Warden, McCormick
& Perry Correctional Institutions,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 8:13-0876-TMC

ORDER

The petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a state prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. The respondent has answered the petition and moved for summary judgment in his favor.
(See ECF Nos. 16, 17).

Pursuant to 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. This
case is now before the court on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending the court grant the respondent’s motion for summary judgment on all grounds.
(ECF No. 32). The petitioner has filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 37). Accordingly,
this matter is now ripe for review.
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, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.

The court has conducted the requisite de novo review of the record and, while the
petitioner’s objections are lengthy and detailed, they merely restate factual allegations and legal
conclusions raised in the original petition and fully addressed in briefing and in the Report. In
addition, the court finds that the Report’s analysis is thorough and accurate and, therefore, adopts
the Report and incorporates it herein in its entirety. Therefore, the respondent’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED and the petition is DENIED.
Additionally, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas
relief 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 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); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court finds that the
petitioner has 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
March 13, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina