Sigmon v. Byars

Filing 141

ORDER adopting 126 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that Respondents' 60 Motion for Summary Judgment is FOUND AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/18/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Brad Keith Sigmon, # SK-6008
Petitioner,
v.
William R. Byars, Jr.,
Commissioner, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; Joseph
McFadden, Warden of Lieber
Correctional Institution,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 8:13-cv-1399-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner Brad Keith Sigmon, # SK-6008, represented by counsel, filed this action
petitioning for a stay of execution and requesting the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. See Mot., ECF No. 1; Pet., ECF No. 42. On December
10, 2013, Respondents responded by filing a motion for summary judgment and return and
memorandum in support. See ECF Nos. 60–61. The matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
See R & R, ECF No. 126. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends
the Court find Respondents’ motion for summary judgment is moot. See id. at 4.1
Respondents filed their motion for summary judgment on December 10, 2013. Subsequently, on July
23, 2014, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to amend the Petition and directed Petitioner to file his
amended petition by August 8, 2014. (ECF No. 123) No objections were filed to this order. In the
present Report and Recommendation before the Court, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
find that, due to the anticipated filing of the amended pleading, the motion for summary judgment
should be denied as moot since it was directed at a superseded pleading. See ECF No. 126 at 2–3. The
amended habeas petition was filed on August 8, 2014. (ECF NO. 131) Accordingly, it appears that the
limitation period of 28 U.S.C. Section 2266(b)(1)(A) would start anew. Section 2266 (b)(1)(A)
provides: “A district court shall render a final determination and enter a final judgment on any
application for a writ of habeas corpus brought under this chapter in a capital case not later than 450
days after the date on which the application is filed, or 60 days after the date on which the case is
submitted for decision, whichever is earlier.” The parties previously agreed that the 60 day period
1

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead
must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Respondents’ motion for summary judgment, ECF
No. 60, is FOUND AS MOOT.

begins to run on the date that any reply to objections to a Report and Recommendation is filed or due,
whichever is earlier. See Scheduling Order dated August 28, 2013 (ECF No. 50).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 18, 2014

3