Blash v. The State
ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court grants Respondent's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/22/14. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,.,.,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA):' ", '
Eddie Blash, Jr.,
MAY 22 A q: 58
Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution,
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that this Court grant Respondent's motion for summary
judgment. (Dkt. No. 38). As set forth below, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the
order of the Court.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings. Respondent then filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 22). Petitioner
then filed a response opposing the motion for summary judgment.
(Dkt. No. 30).
Magistrate Judge then issued the present R&R recommending the Court grant Respondent's
motion. (Dkt. No. 38). Petitioner then filed a response to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 40).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final detennination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
After review of the record, the R&R, and Petitioner's response to the R&R, the Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case and
therefore agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. The Court agrees that
Respondent's motion for summary judgment should be granted because the petition raises solely
matters of state law which are not cognizable on federal habeas review. (Dkt. No. 38 at 22).
Further, Petitioner agrees that Respondent's motion should be granted. (Dkt. No. 40).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of
the Court. (Dkt. No. 38). Accordingly, the Court grants Respondent's motion for summary
judgment. (Dkt. No. 22).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ric d Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
May 1...1.. ,2014
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?