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.
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. Accordingly,
the Court entered an Order adopting the Report without
objection. (ECF No. 59).
this second Order adopting the Report was entered, Cook later
requested an extension of time to file objections citing
several excuses for his delay including a serious medical
injury that led to a prolonged hospital stay, subsequent
relocation of correctional institutes, a delay in receiving
his legal documents, and a prison “lock-down” put
in place due to a hurricane placing South Carolina in a state
of emergency. (ECF No. 62). Once again, the Court felt it
prudent to vacate its second Order adopting the Report and
gave Cook an additional 30 days to file objections. (ECF No.
December 5, 2016, the Court granted Cook's third motion
for an extension of time to file objections to the Report by
giving him and additional 30 days to file objections. (ECF
No. 68). Moreover, this Order stated that this extension was
the last to be given and after the additional 30 days had
expired, the Court would promptly rule on the Report. Despite
this Order, Cook requested another extension on January 6,
2017. (ECF No. 71). This Court finds no compelling reason to
delay the disposition of this case any longer. Cook has had
over six months to respond to the Report and has failed to do
so. In the interest of judicial economy, this Court is
inclined to deny the motion for an extension of time and rule
on the Report despite Cook's failure to file any
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 Local Civil Rules for the District
of South Carolina make no provision for ...