United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on Respondent's motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No.12). Petitioner Anthony Fields, a
state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this 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 April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett filed a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that Respondent's
motion for summary judgment should be granted. (ECF No. 44).
On May 10, 2017, Petitioner timely filed objections to the
Report (ECF No. 46), and Respondent filed a response to
Petitioner's objections on May 24, 2017 (ECF No. 47).
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).
is a state inmate currently housed in the Broad River
Correctional Institution. In October 1989, Petitioner was
indicted for second-degree burglary and larceny. On February
27, 1990, he pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to
concurrent terms of ten years' imprisonment, provided
that upon ninety days of shock probation, the balance of his
sentence would be suspended and he would be placed on
probation for three years with other conditions. He did not
appeal his 1990 convictions and sentences.
March 1993, Petitioner's probation was revoked when he
was indicted for one count of first-degree burglary and two
counts of second-degree burglary. On August 10, 1993,
Petitioner pled guilty to those charges and was sentenced to
an aggregate term of twenty years' imprisonment.
Petitioner did not appeal his 1993 convictions and sentences.
August 2005, Petitioner was indicted for first degree
burglary and petit larceny. In 2006, after a jury trial, he
was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the
burglary offense and thirty days imprisonment for the larceny
offense. In 2007, Petitioner filed an application for
post-conviction relief (“PCR”) challenging his
1990 convictions and sentences. Petitioner's application
was dismissed as untimely on January 23, 2017.
2013, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court, challenging
his 1993 and 2006 convictions and sentences. See C/A No.
0:13-02679-TMC (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2013). The petition was
dismissed and respondent was granted summary judgment on July
then filed this habeas action challenging his 1990
convictions and sentences. Specifically, Petitioner raises
the following grounds for relief, quoted verbatim:
Ground One: 6th Amendment Violations, Denial of Counsel.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner invoked his right to counsel,
but no counsel represented petitioner, at no judicial
proceedings for this case. And petitioner never waived his
right to counsel. State has delayed adjudicating petitioner
PCR petition for more than 8 years, and is still pending.
Ground Two: Denial of Direct Appeal of Conviction.
Supporting Facts: I was not consulted by counsel on my
ability to appeal or means to appeal. Never waived right ...