Greer v. Tyger River Correctional Institution
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 19 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Respondents 8 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Action is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealabiity is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/7/2017. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Joshua Ray Greer,
Civil Action No. 8:17-cv-00537-TMC
Petitioner is a state prisoner who seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. With the assistance
of counsel, Petitioner filed this Petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 24, 2017. (ECF
No. 1). On April 19, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8) and a
return and memorandum to the Petition (ECF No. 7). Petitioner filed a response in opposition of
Respondent’s motion (ECF No. 16) and Respondent filed a reply (ECF No. 17). In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, 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 because the Petition is untimely and because Petitioner is not entitled to
equitable tolling regarding his Petition. (ECF No. 19). 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 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. 19), which is incorporated herein by
Accordingly, the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8) is
GRANTED. Thus, this action 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
November 7, 2017
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?