Golden v. Ariail et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by David Mike McCall 24 , and dismissing this Petition with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 1/8/10. (rpol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Steven Undra Golden ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) ) ) David Mike McCall, Warden, ) Perry Correctional Center, ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.:9-08-3469-TLW-BM

ORDER
Petitioner, Steven Undra Golden ("petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 8, 2008. (Doc. #1). This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. # 36). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment, and that the Petition be dismissed, with prejudice. (Doc. # 36). The petitioner filed objections to the report. (Doc. # 38). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not

objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the record, the relevant case law including Moore v. Crosby, 321 F.3d 1377 (11th Cir. 2003), and the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 36). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Petition is DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge January 8, 2010 Florence, South Carolina

2