United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
CHARLES E. RICHEY, Petitioner,
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSING PETITIONER'S HABEAS PETITION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A HEARING
MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.
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 that Respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted and Petitioner's habeas 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 April 22, 2014, the Clerk of Court entered Petitioner's objections on May 7, 2014, and entered his amendments to his objections on May 23, 2014. The Court has carefully considered both sets of objections and finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief in his § 2254 petition:
GROUND ONE: Ineffective Assistance of trial counsel.
Supporting facts: The lower court erred in failing to properly determine whether counsel was ineffective in failing to argue for suppression of a second statement on the ground that it was obtained in violation of [P]etitioner['s] right to [remain] silent as such was not scrupulously honored.
GROUND TWO: Ineffective Assistance of trial counsel.
Supporting facts: Trial counsel fail[ed] to discover and argue for suppression of a third statement on the ground that it was obtained in violation of [P]etitioner['s] Sixth Amendment right to the presen[ce] of counsel during questioning.
GROUND THREE: Ineffective Assistance of trial counsel.
Supporting facts: Trial counsel fail[ed] to preserve for appellate review whether trial judge err[ed] in admitting identif[ication] testimony of the store clerk when it was the result of an unduly suggestive show-up process and the state fail[ed] to prove its reliability.
GROUND FOUR: Ineffective Assistance of counsel.
Supporting facts: Trial counsel['s] failure to conduct a reasonably substantial investigation into alternative lines of defense deprived [P]etitioner of a fair trial and undermined ...