United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge
Yahya Muqit, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated
this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1.
The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Jacquelyn D. Austin. See R & R, ECF No. 114. The
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Respondent's amended
motion for summary judgment and denying Petitioner's
§ 2254 petition as untimely. R & R at 2, 25. Petitioner
has filed objections to the R & R, and Respondent has filed a
reply to the objections. See ECF Nos. 121 & 123.
jury found Petitioner and a codefendant guilty of two counts
of armed robbery, two counts of possession of a firearm
during the commission of a violent crime, and two counts of
pointing and presenting a firearm. See ECF No. 50-4
at 6-7. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent
terms of thirty years' imprisonment for the armed
robberies, consecutive terms of five years' imprisonment
for the firearm possession convictions, and concurrent terms
of five years' imprisonment for the pointing and
presenting convictions. See ECF No. 50-4 at 19-21.
Petitioner's convictions and sentences were affirmed on
direct appeal; his state application for post-conviction
relief (PCR) was denied and dismissed with prejudice; and his
petition for a writ of certiorari from the denial of his PCR
application was denied. See ECF Nos. 50-10, 50-12,
50-13, & 50-15. Petitioner then filed the instant petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. See ECF No. 1.
this Court issued an order that denied Respondent's
original motion for summary judgment without prejudice and
granted Respondent leave to refile an amended motion for
summary judgment addressing whether the one-year statute of
limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) bars Petitioner's
§ 2254 petition and whether equitable tolling applies
(as well as presenting the same arguments raised in the
original motion for summary judgment). See ECF
No. 78. Thereafter, Respondent filed an amended answer
raising a statute of limitations defense and an amended
motion for summary judgment based on that defense, which is
now before the Court for disposition following the Magistrate
Judge's issuance of the R & R. See ECF Nos. 81 &
Review of the Magistrate Judge's R & R
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections
are made, and it 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. §
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only
for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material
fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cty., Md.,
789 F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2015); see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”). “A party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion
by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record
. . .; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). The facts and
inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
Reyazuddin, 789 F.3d at 413, but the Court
“cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility
determinations.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of
the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015).
Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Respondent's
amended motion for summary judgment because Petitioner's
§ 2254 petition is untimely under the one-year statute
of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and therefore must
be denied. R & R at 2, 20-25. Liberally construing
Petitioner's objections,  the Court has conducted a de novo
review of the Magistrate Judge's finding and agrees
Petitioner's § 2254 petition is untimely.
Applicable Law: One-Year Statute of Limitations for Filing a