Bradley v. Stevenson
ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. The petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 9/19/2016.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 9:15-cv-02741-TLW
Robert Stevenson, III, Warden of Broadriver,
Henry Lee Bradley, also known as
Henry L. Bradley,
Petitioner Henry Lee Bradley, (“Petitioner”), a self-represented state prisoner, filed the
instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 9, 2015. (ECF No.
1). 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 United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for review of the petition,
motions, and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On April 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough Report, (ECF No. 29),
recommending that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), be granted and that
the petition be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed a timely Objection to the Report, (ECF No.
31), and the matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record,
including, in particular, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and Petitioner’s
Objection. The Court has undertaken this de novo review, even though Petitioner’s Objection
consists almost exclusively of restatements of the arguments already advanced in prior filings
coupled with inapposite legal citations and efforts to present alternate factual scenarios not
supported by the record. The Petitioner’s Objection does not meaningfully counter any of the core
legal conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge or the legal analysis. Specifically, Petitioner does
not meaningfully object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings related to the procedural default and/or
non-cognizability of certain of Petitioner’s grounds for relief or the determination that Petitioner has
failed to show that any of his many allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel satisfy the twoprong standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 29), overruling Petitioner’s
Objection. (ECF No. 31). Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is
GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(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 the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this
court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 001). In this case, this Court concludes that
the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate
of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Chief United States District Judge
September 19, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
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?