United States District Court, D. South Carolina
OPINION AND ORDER
Howe Hendricks United States District Judge.
Cornelius Antwan Rogers (“Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, filed this application for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No.
1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the action was referred to United
States Magistrate Mary Gordon Baker, for pretrial handling
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
Magistrate Judge Baker recommends that Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Petitioner's
§ 2254 petition be dismissed. (ECF No. 25.) The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law
on this matter and the Court incorporates them without
filed this action against Respondent alleging that his equal
protection rights were violated. (ECF No. 1-3 at 6.) On June
20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report. (ECF No. 35.)
On July 5, 2016, Petitioner filed his Objections (ECF No.
27), to which Respondent replied on July 7, 2016 (ECF No.
28). Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge has accurately and adequately
summarized the disputed and undisputed facts relevant to this
action. The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them
to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district
court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
district court. 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 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 Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party makes only
“general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate
Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
reviewing these pleadings, the Court is mindful of
Petitioner's pro se status. When dealing with a
pro se litigant, the Court is charged with liberal
construction of the pleadings. See, e.g., De'Lonta v.
Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). The
requirement of a liberal construction does not mean, however,
that the Court can ignore a petitioner's clear failure to
allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim, or that the
Court must assume the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact where none exists. See United States v.
Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012).
Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report
and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petition is
barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner's
objection, which alleges that Petitioner is entitled to
equitable tolling because of his “lack of knowledge for
the law and the ways in which it maneuvers, ” is
unavailing.(ECF No. 27 at 1.) “Courts in this
circuit have held that extraordinary circumstances warranting
equitable tolling do not include unfamiliarity with the legal
process and inadequacy of the prison law library.”
Pinckney v. McFadden, No. 6:14-4274-MGL, 2015 WL
3871876, at *7 (D.S.C. June 22, 2015) (citing United
States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2004);
Garvin v. Eagleton, No. 8:12-1165-JMC, 2013 WL
3821482, at *13 (D.S.C. July 23, 2013) (“alleged
inadequacies of prison law libraries do not toll the statute
of limitations”)). Accordingly, the objection is
thorough review of the Report, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that Petitioner's objections are
without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and
by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules Petitioner's
objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It
is therefore ORDERED that Respondent's motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and Petitioner's §
2254 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . .only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial ...