United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Darryl T. Cook, Petitioner,
Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent.
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
T. Cook (“Cook”) filed this pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while
confined at Broad River Correctional Institution of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections. Cook alleges that his
Constitutional rights have been violated based on a number of
grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and the
trial court's reliance on inadmissible
evidence. (ECF No. 1).
Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on November
25, 2015. (ECF No. 19). Pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this Court
advised Cook of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures
and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately
respond to the Respondent's motion. (ECF No. 20). Cook
filed a timely response on April 4, 2016. (ECF No. 35). The
Respondent filed a reply in opposition to Cook's
responses on April 14, 2016. (ECF No. 37). Additionally, Cook
filed a sur-reply to Respondents reply on May 2, 2016. (ECF
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this court should grant the Respondent's
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 45). The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on
this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and
standards without a recitation.
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on July 14, 2016. However, Cook failed
to file any objections to the Report. The Court then entered
an Order adopting the Report on August 17, 2016. (ECF No.
50). Cook later advised the court that he was suffering from
a serious medical condition and his hospitalization prevented
him from objecting to the Report. (ECF No. 53, 54). The Court
felt it prudent to vacate the previous Order adopting the
Report and gave Cook an additional fourteen days to respond.
(ECF No. 55). However, Cook failed to file any objections to
the Report despite the additional time to do so. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation,
grants the Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 19) and denies Cook's petition.
because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, ” a
certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. §
 The Magistrate Judge's Report
fully addresses each of Cook's eight grounds for a writ
of habeas corpus in turn and competently applies the law to
the supporting facts.
 The Local Civil Rules for the District
of South Carolina make no provision for sur-replies.
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th
Cir. 2001). In the instant matter, ...