United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Seich's objections to
United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West's report
and recommendation (“R & R”) (ECF Nos. 33
& 30). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting
Cartledge's summary judgment motion (ECF No. 24) and
denying Seich's rule to show cause motion (ECF No. 18).
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The R & R has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This Court must conduct a de novo review of any
portion of the R & R to which a timely, specific
objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or
modify the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendations in whole or in part. Id.
Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
Id. A party's failure to object is taken as the
party's agreement with the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Absent a timely, specific objection-or as to those portions
of the R & R to which no specific objection is made-this
Court “must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's
se filings are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and federal district courts
must construe such pleadings liberally to allow the
development of potentially meritorious claims, see Hughes
v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam). The liberal
construction requirement, however, does not mean courts can
ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth claims
cognizable in federal district court. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir.
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Cartledge's motion
for summary judgment because Seich filed his 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition after the expiration of 28 U.S.C. §
2244's one-year statute of limitations. In his objection,
Seich discusses several issues but raises only one objection
to the R & R: that his § 2254 petition was timely
because he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute
of limitations. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly analyzed
Seich's equitable tolling argument and found that it
lacked merit. Seich's objection to that conclusion merely
restates his argument. As that objection is not proper, the
Court overrules it. See, e.g., Anderson v.
Dobson, 627 F.Supp.2d 619, 623 (W.D. N.C. 2007) (stating
an objection “that merely restates the arguments
previously presented” or “does nothing more than
state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested
resolution” is not sufficient to trigger de novo review
(citation and quotation marks omitted)). Seich's other
“objections” restate arguments he made before the
Magistrate Judge about the merits of his case. Those
objections are unrelated to the Magistrate Judge's R
& R and are therefore irrelevant. The Court has reviewed
the R & R for clear error and finds none.
foregoing reasons, Seich's lone cognizable objection is
OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R & R,
GRANTS Cartledge's summary judgment motion, DENIES
Seich's rule to show cause motion, and DISMISSES
Seich's § 2254 petition with prejudice. 
IS SO ORDERED.
The Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability. Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v.
Cockrell,537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to
satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court's
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong);
Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding
that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a
petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the