Sadler v. Williams

Filing 67

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ADOPTING the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 63 ) and DISMISSING and DENYING as moot Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ). Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 1/10/2022. (sgri)

8:19-cv-00113-TMC

Date Filed 01/10/22

Entry Number 67

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Kinjta Kadeem Sadler a/k/a Kinjta )
Sadler Kadeem,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Charles Williams, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-0113-TMC
ORDER

Petitioner Kinjta Kadeem Sadler (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the
“Petition”) on January 14, 2019.

(ECF Nos. 1, 12, 14).

In accordance with 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. On July 3, 2019, the magistrate judge entered a text order
granting Respondent’s unopposed motion to stay this action pending resolution of Petitioner’s state
habeas corpus petition before the South Carolina Supreme Court. (ECF No. 33). In granting the
motion and staying the case, the magistrate judge noted that Petitioner’s state petition “raises
basically the same ground he asserts in Ground Two of this federal habeas corpus petition . . .
[which] raises a claim stemming from the South Carolina Court of Appeals’ reversal of Petitioner’s
co-defendant’s conviction, which reversal was based on a Batson challenge that the Court of
Appeals noted was preserved as to Petitioner[.]” Id. Thus, the magistrate judge stayed this action
and directed Respondent to file updates as to the status of the pending state habeas corpus petition
every 60 days or within 10 days of its resolution. Id. On December 1, 2021, Respondent filed his
fifteenth status report indicating that on September 17, 2021, a State circuit judge granted

1

8:19-cv-00113-TMC

Date Filed 01/10/22

Entry Number 67

Page 2 of 3

Petitioner post-conviction relief, vacated his convictions, and remanded the case for a new trial,
and that the Government would not be appealing the grant of relief to Petitioner. (ECF Nos. 61;
61-1 at 14).
Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending the Petition be denied and dismissed as moot because “the claims raised in the
instant Petition . . . were resolved in Petitioner’s favor by the state court when it vacated
Petitioner’s conviction and sentence.” (ECF No. 63 at 10). The Report further advised Petitioner
of his right to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
therein. (ECF No. 63-1). The Report was mailed to Petitioner at the address he provided to the
court on December 13, 2021, (ECF No. 64), and was returned to the court as undeliverable on
December 29, 2021, (ECF No. 65). 1 To date, Petitioner has 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 Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985)
(quoting 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. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop.
Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200
(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 & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s

The court notes that Petitioner was repeatedly advised of his duty to keep the court informed as to his current address
and warned that the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of his case for failure to comply with court orders.
(ECF Nos. 5 at 2; 10 at 2).

1

2

8:19-cv-00113-TMC

Date Filed 01/10/22

Entry Number 67

Page 3 of 3

note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s
waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).
Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate
standards and, finding no clear error, the court adopts the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 63), and
incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)
is DISMISSED and DENIED as moot.
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 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 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 appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina
January 10, 2022

3