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.

Singley v. Bush

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

October 16, 2017

Ferris Geiger Singley, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Dennis Bush, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge.

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Ferris Geiger Singley (Petitioner), a state prisoner incarcerated at Broad River Correctional Institution (BRCI) and proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 26, 2017. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pretrial proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge. On June 27, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Report) recommending that this court summarily dismiss the § 2254 petition with prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return because the petition was untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner was given notice of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 12 at 7). Petitioner filed objections. (ECF No. 24).

         II.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner is currently incarcerated at BRCI. His incarceration stems from his May 2006 conviction for first-degree burglary and armed robbery. (ECF No. 1 at 1). The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction on May 6, 2009. Id. at 2. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari, and it affirmed the conviction on April 4, 2011. Id. The Remittitur was issued on April 20, 2011, and received on April 21, 2011. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2). Petitioner then filed his first Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) application on June 10, 2011. Id. In this application, Petitioner alleged the following grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because due date of petition for rehearing was not calendared and the deadline passed; and (3) due process violations and conflicts of interest due to Judge McMahon's daughter working for the solicitor's office and because Petitioner's public defender was previously an advocate for female victims. Id. The Honorable Deadra L. Jefferson denied and dismissed Petitioner's PCR application on October 14, 2014, and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari on April 15, 2014. Id. Remittitur was issued on May 3, 2016, and was received on May 5, 2016. Id. On July 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a second application for PCR alleging essentially the same grounds raised in this petition, namely ineffective assistance of trial counsel and ineffective assistance of PCR counsel. (ECF No. 1-2). His second PCR application was dismissed on November 15, 2016, for failure to file within the time mandated by statute and for being successive. Id.

         Petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 26, 2017. (ECF No. 1). He alleges fourteen grounds in his petition, all essentially alleging ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, or PCR counsel: (1) that his PCR and appellant counsel were ineffective; (2) that Judge Jefferson was “unprofessional and ruled with her personal feelings” at Petitioner's PCR hearing; (3) that his trial counsel was ineffective; (4) that the mention of Petitioner's prior criminal record at trial was inappropriate; (5) that his trial counsel gave ineffective advice; (6) that the determination of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court was wrong because Petitioner had ownership in the home he was convicted of burglarizing; (7) that trial counsel's use of objections regarding handwritten note was ineffective; (8) that trial counsel was ineffective for not asking Judge McMahon to recuse himself from trial and that Judge McMahon was wrong to not recuse himself; (9) that counsel should have asked for victim's taxi records to impeach her at trial; (10) that his PCR counsel did not ask the court to sequester witnesses at his PCR hearing; (11) that trial witnesses were used ineffectively; (12) that appellate counsel was ineffective in missing the date to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing and that PCR counsel was ineffective in refusing to argue this ground at PCR hearing; (13) that it was an ethical violation for the PCR judge to correct Assistant Attorney General's statement of “you should deny the application for PCR without prejudice” to say “with prejudice” instead; and (14) that it was improper for him to not be allowed to attend the hearing in January 2014 in which his appointed counsel was relieved due to concerns for her safety. (ECF No. 1-1).

         After reviewing the record, the magistrate judge filed the Report recommending that the petition be dismissed because Petitioner failed to timely file the petition within the one-year statute of limitations as provided for by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). (ECF No. 12). Petitioner filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 24).

         III.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The magistrate judge filed the Report in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The recommendations set forth in the Report have no presumptive weight, and this court remains responsible for making a final determination in this matter. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, 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).

         IV.

         LAW ...


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.