Porterfield v. Cartledge

Filing 36

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Petition isDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/13/2017.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
GEORGE PORTERFIELD,
aka Larry Brown,
Petitioner,
vs.
LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16-3454-MGL-BM
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND DISMISSING THE PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
This case was filed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted and the
Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 19, 2017, but Petitioner failed to file any
objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Moreover,
a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the Petition is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
To the extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that certificate
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 13th day of November, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within 30 days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2