Slocumb v. McKie

Filing 21

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/16/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Conrad Lamont Slocumb,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Warden Bernard McKie,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No.: 9:13-734-JFA-BM

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, Conrad Slocumb, is an inmate with the South Caroline
Department of Corrections. He initiated this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging
his original conviction and subsequent re-sentencing in state court.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment2
should be granted because petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, however he did not exercise that right and the time within which to do so
has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge,

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying petitioner of
the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for
summary judgment. Petitioner responded to the motion.

1

this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and
incorporates it herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner
has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2).3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 16, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3

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) (West 2009). 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); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that the defendant
has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

2