Jamison v. Warden Peeples

Filing 45

OPINION & ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. after a thorough review of the magistrate judges Report and the record inthis case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Cherrys Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent's motion for summary judgment, docket number 22, is granted and Jamison's § 2254 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without prejudice. It is furtherORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Jamison has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 11/17/2022. (apsn)

Download PDF
9:22-cv-00300-HMH Date Filed 11/17/22 Entry Number 45 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Andra Jamison, Petitioner, vs. Warden Peeples, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 9:22-0300-HMH-MHC OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 Andra Jamison (“Jamison”) is a pro se state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In her Report and Recommendation filed on October 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Cherry recommends granting the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Jamison’s petition without prejudice. (R&R, generally, ECF No. 42.) Jamison filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.2 (Objs., ECF No. 44.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific 1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See 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 and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 2 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 1 9:22-cv-00300-HMH Date Filed 11/17/22 Entry Number 45 Page 2 of 3 objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation 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). Upon review, the court finds that Jamison’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Cherry’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 22, is granted and Jamison’s § 2254 petition, docket number 1, is dismissed without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Jamison has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina November 17, 2022 2 9:22-cv-00300-HMH Date Filed 11/17/22 Entry Number 45 Page 3 of 3 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3

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?