stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Samuel Brown, ) Case No. 0:18-cv-3250-DCC
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
Warden Ridgeland Correctional )
Institution, )
)
Respondent. )
________________________________ )
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for
pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On April 12, 2019,
Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
Nos. 18, 19. Petitioner filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 27. On September 30,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted
and the Petition be denied. ECF No. 36. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time to do
so has lapsed.
1
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
As previously stated, Petitioner did not file objections to the Report. Accordingly,
the Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court agrees with the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary
Judgment [19] is GRANTED and the Petition is DENIED.
In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas
relief absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
2
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In
this case, the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
October 31, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina
3