Pearson v. McFadden

Filing 58

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioners petition is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/16/2015.(cwhi, )

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

Rayshawn Pearson,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden Joseph McFadden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:14-cv-3943

ORDER

Petitioner Rayshawn Pearson, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this Petition seeking
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 35). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02, DSC, this matter was initially referred to a magistrate judge. Before the court is the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) and dismiss the petition with
prejudice. (ECF No. 53). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report.
(ECF No. 53 at 33). However, Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time to do so has now
run.1
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of
objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. 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

1

Petitioner was granted an extension of time in which to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 55), but he still
failed to file objections.
1

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 thorough review of the applicable law, the record in this case, and the Report, the
court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by
reference. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is
GRANTED, and Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas relief
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 this case, the court finds that the petitioner has 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
October 16, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

2