Crawford v. McFadden

Filing 41

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; finding as moot 37 Motion to Change Venue; finding as moot 37 Motion to Consolidate Cases; finding as moot 37 Motion for Recusal. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/12/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lawrence L. Crawford, a/k/a Jonah Gabriel )
Jahjah Tishbite,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Warden McFadden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 9:16-cv-3808-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Lawrence L. Crawford, an SCDC inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for habeas relief. ECF No. 1, 16. On December 22, 2016, the Court
issued a proper form Order directing Petitioner to bring the case into proper form and notifying
him that if he did not, the case would be subject to dismissal. ECF No. 5. In response to the Court’s
proper form Order, Petitioner filed, inter alia, letters, ECF Nos. 8, 11, 12, motions, ECF Nos. 7,
13, 18, affidavits, ECF Nos. 19, 22, 23, and an Amended Petition, ECF No. 16, but failed to bring
the case into proper form. On May 4, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending summary dismissal of the Petition. ECF No.
27. Thereafter, Petitioner filed several documents including objections to the Report. ECF Nos.
29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40. Petitioner also filed a motion for consolidation, recusal, and
a change of venue. ECF No. 37. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in

1

whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the
voluminous filings and the relevant law. While Petitioner asserts general legal conclusions, he
does not state a basis for habeas relief. As to Petitioner’s constitutional claims in his filings, the
record reflects that Petitioner’s claims do not state a cognizable claim under federal law. In
Petitioner’s objections, he restates conclusions and allegations from his previous filings, but fails
to state any legal or factual basis for the Court to reject the conclusions in the Report. To the extent
that his objections can be understood, the efforts of Petitioner to incorporate filings from other
cases is not appropriate. See Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC, 654 F. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. Va. 2009).
Further, the Court notes that although Petitioner has filed numerous documents in this case, he has
failed to bring the action into proper form.
For these reasons and the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 27,
is hereby ACCEPTED, the Petitioner’s Objections, ECF Nos. 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39,
40, are OVERRULED, and the Petition, ECF Nos. 1, 16, is DISMISSED without prejudice and
2

without requiring Respondent to file a return. In light of the dismissal of this action, Petitioner’s
motion for consolidation, for recusal, and for a change of venue, ECF No. 37, is hereby denied as
MOOT.
The Court has reviewed this Petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of
appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 12, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3