Robinson v. Reynolds

Filing 27

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 5/2/2016.(cwhi, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jermel Anthony Robinson,
Petitioner,
vs.
Cecilia Reynolds,
Respondent.
______________________________________

) C/A No. 9:15-3382-JFA-BM
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

The pro se petitioner, Jermel Anthony Robinson, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging
his 2009 state convictions.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should grant the respondent’s motion
for summary judgment.2 The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on March 22, 2016. However, the

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 filed a respond to the motion.

1

petitioner did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, 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 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and incorporates it herein
by reference. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17)
is granted.
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.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

May 2, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

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