Wilson v. Lee Correction Warden ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION James A. Wilson, ) Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-00782-RBH ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden, Lee Correctional ) Institution ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________) This habeas matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.1 See ECF No. 59. 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the 1 The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). 2 Petitioner’s objections were initially due by January 23, 2023. See ECF Nos. 59 & 60. By text order dated January 30, 2023, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file objections so that objections were due February 13, 2023. See ECF No. 62. Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)). Certificate of Appealability “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. In this case, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing of “the denial of a constitutional right.” Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 59], GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 43], and DENIES AND DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2254 petition with prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 2 right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell February 22, 2023 R. Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge 3