Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grant v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

January 26, 2017

Gary Grant, Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent.

          OPINION & ORDER

          Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge.

         This 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).[1] Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for review.

         The 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).

         I. Background/Procedural History

         In his 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 Memorandum A).
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 Memorandum A).
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 A).
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 Memorandum A.).
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 RESPONDENT
GROUND FIVE: Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call EMS worker to testify to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.