United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), filed on June 15, 2016 (ECF No. 23),
recommending that Plaintiff Anthony Donnell Glover's
pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be
summarily dismissed for failure to state a proper basis upon
which this court can grant relief. This review considers
Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation
(“Objections”), filed June 30, 2016. (ECF No.
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive
weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See 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 objections are made.
who is a state prisoner, has repeatedly and explicitly
requested that his complaint be construed as a general civil
complaint brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides
federal district courts with original jurisdiction over civil
actions regarding federal questions, rather than as a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF Nos. 1, 14, &
25). However, as the Magistrate Judge stated in her Report,
the relief sought-the vacation of his sentence and release
from custody-can only be granted by a federal court when
brought as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No.
23 at 2 (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78
(2005) (holding that a prisoner held in state custody who is
challenging the “fact or duration of his confinement .
. . must seek federal habeas corpus relief.”))).
Furthermore, upon review of Plaintiff's claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, the Magistrate Judge was correct in
stating that the mere recitation of a statute, without citing
any “specific legal cause of action, ” cannot
form the basis of relief. (Id. at 3). As such, and
notwithstanding Plaintiff's objections, this claim will
be analyzed as a Petition for a Writ for Habeas Corpus.
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's
Writ be summarily dismissed because “Plaintiff's
asserted basis for relief-that the state trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction-is a matter of state law, and
therefore, is not a proper ground for federal habeas corpus
relief.” (Id. at 4 (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a))). In his Response to the Report,
Plaintiff confirmed that he was indeed challenging the state
court's subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 25 at 1).
Thus, Plaintiff in his Response only confirmed, rather than
challenged, the Magistrate Judge's interpretation of the
Plaintiff failed to properly object to the Report with
specificity, the court does not need to conduct a de
novo review and instead 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of
the facts and law, and there is no clear error. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 23), and DISMISSES this Petition (ECF No. 1) without
governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue… only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability… shall
indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing
required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this
court's assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling
by the district court is likewise debatable. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In
this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a
certificate of appealability has not been met.