Wilson v. Stevenson
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 23 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner's § 2254 petition is DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/13/2016.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Glen Wilson, #319978,
) Civil Action No.: 9:15-1213-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Warden Robert M. Stevenson, III,
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________ )
Petitioner Glen Wilson, (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this application for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, for pretrial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). Judge Marchant recommends that Respondent’s motion
for summary judgment be granted and Petitioner’s § 2254 petition be dismissed, with
prejudice. (ECF No. 23.) The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter and the Court incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed this action against Respondent on March 11, 2015,1 alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report; and on October 13, 2015, Petitioner filed his Objections. (ECF No. 25.) The
Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will
enter judgment accordingly.
1
Because the delivery date to the BRCI (Broad River Correctional Institution) mailroom does not appear
on the envelope, Petitioner has been given filing credit based on the date that appears on the petition.
(ECF No.1 at 14.) See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding prisoner’s pleading is considered
filed when given to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report and Recommendation 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the
court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge provided a detailed account of the state court’s treatment
of Petitioner’s claims and correctly concluded that the findings of the state court were
reasonable and that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing counsel was
ineffective as required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 886 (1984), and its
progeny. (ECF No. 23.) Most of Petitioner’s objections generally consist of nothing more
than arguments that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. And,
Petitioner’s remaining objections are so lacking in merit as not to warrant discussion.
-2-
There being no objection that directs the Court to a specific error in the Magistrate’s
proposed findings and recommendations, the Court is tasked only with review of his
conclusions for clear error. Because the Court agrees with the cogent analysis by the
Magistrate Judge, it need not discuss those same issues for a second time here.
Therefore, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s objections.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules
Petitioner’s objections and adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Report herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DISMISSED
without an evidentiary hearing.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c) (2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c) (3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. 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 this case, the
-3-
legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met.
Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 13, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
-4-
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?