United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
OPINION & ORDER
Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on Petitioner Gary Grant's
(“Grant”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all
pre-trial proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge. On
September 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III,
filed a Report and Recommendation recommending
Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) be
granted and the petition dismissed without an evidentiary
hearing. (ECF No. 26). On October 19, 2016, Grant timely
filed objections to the Report (ECF No. 32), and Respondent
has responded to those objections (ECF No. 34). Accordingly, this
matter is now ripe for review.
magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71
(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). However, 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).
Report, the magistrate judge sets forth the procedural
history and then addressed each of the six grounds that Grant
raises in this habeas action:
GROUND ONE: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (See
Supporting facts: Sixth Amendment right to competent and
effective trial counsel greatly violated when trial counsel
took Defendant to trial in a capital case without all
documentation entitled to Defendant under Brady v.
Maryland to ensure Defendant a fair trial. (See
GROUND TWO: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (See
Memorandum A). Supporting Facts: Sixth Amendment violation
when trial counsel for Defendant refused his client's
wishes to be tried separately from all alleged co-defendants.
(See Memorandum A.).
GROUND THREE: Violation of Defendant/Petitioner's Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendment Rights collectively. (See Memorandum
Supporting Facts: It was allowed throughout trial for the
State to use glaringly apparent conflicting testimony from
its star witnesses, and trial judge abused her discretion in
allowing such obviously inadmissible evidence even if trial
attorney himself was too incompetent to object. (See
GROUND FOUR: Can the State of South Carolina maintain a
conviction that resulted from an illegal grand jury, a void
indictment and criminal acts?
Supporting Facts: (See Attachment 4 page 96-131).
ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN ATTACHMENT AS SET FORTH BY
GROUND FIVE: Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to
call EMS worker to testify to ...