United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
ODOURI L. LYTES, Petitioner,
LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
DISMISSING THE PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is
proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United
States Magistrate Judge suggesting Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment be granted and the Petition be dismissed
with prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District
of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 (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. §
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 8, 2017. ECF
No. 40. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order
adopting the Report, granting Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and dismissing the Petition based on
Petitioner's failure to set forth any specific objections
to the Report. ECF No. 43. The Clerk of Court entered a
corresponding judgment that same day. ECF No. 44.
subsequently filed a motion on March 6, 2017, ECF No. 46,
requesting an extension of the time to file objections to the
Report, which the Court granted, ECF No. 47. Petitioner filed
his objections to the Report on March 10, 2017. ECF No. 50.
Accordingly, the Court will vacate its February 28, 2017,
Order and the corresponding judgment of the same date and
reevaluate the Report in light of Petitioner's
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate
Judge's Report to which a specific objection has been
made. The Court need not conduct a de novo review, however,
Awhen a party makes general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate
Judge's] proposed findings and recommendations.@
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As provided above,
however, the Court need not-and will not- address any of
Petitioner's arguments that fail to point the Court to
alleged specific errors the Magistrate Judge made in the
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required to
“conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them” or seek out arguments for a party. Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner's objections, he begins by appearing to
provide an explanation why his objections to the Report were
late. ECF No. 50 at 1-2. Petitioner then states he objects to
the Report's finding regarding prosecutorial misconduct.
Id. at 2. He alleges prosecutorial misconduct
“can be identified through the abusive or malicious
practices of State actors, such as police officers” and
claims “law enforcement officers unfairly target
minorities” in South Carolina for crack cocaine.
Id. He then offers a discussion of purported
evidence allegedly demonstrating blacks are treated unfairly
in the criminal justice system as a whole as well as a
discussion of certain evidentiary rules and standards.
Id. at 2-7.
presents nothing in his objections to convince the Court the
Magistrate Judge erred in recommending Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and the
Petition should be denied. Any meaningful counter to the
well-reasoned conclusions in the Report is absent. In an
overabundance of caution, however, the Court has made a de
novo review of the entire record. After having done so, the
Court remains convinced granting Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment and dismissing the Petition is proper.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Report, the Court
will overrule Plaintiff's objections.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts
the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, and the Petition is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to vacate the
Court's February 28, 2017, Order, ECF No. 43, as well as
the corresponding Judgment, ECF No. 44.
extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability
from this ...