United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Ronnie W. Wilson, Petitioner,
Warden Bush, Respondent.
matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
(ECF No. 41), filed on October 16, 2017, recommending that
the court grant Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 16), and dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1) as
untimely pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) 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.
parties were advised of their right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 41 at 13.) However, neither party filed any
objections to the Report.
absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report,
this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence
of a timely filed objection, a district court need not
conduct a de novo review, but 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, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific
written objections to the Report results in a party's
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109
F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme Court has
authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A]
court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when
taken from a district court judgment that adopts a
magistrate's recommendation, upon the filing of
objections with the district court identifying those issues
on which further review is desired.'”) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
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. Petitioner has not shown that he has been
pursuing his rights diligently or that some extraordinary
circumstance exists that would entitle him to equitable
tolling. (ECF No. 41 at 11.) Therefore, the court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 41) GRANTING
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16).
Petitioner's Petition (ECF No. 1) is
DISMISSED as untimely pursuant to the
one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d). Because the court dismisses Petitioner's
Petition, his Motion for Copies and for Return of Videotape
(ECF No. 50) is MOOT.
The law governing certificates of appealability provides
(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).
U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable judges 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, e.g.,
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.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The court notes that Petitioner filed
a “Motion for Procedural Default Not to be Granted to
Warden Bush”, which was received by the Prison Mailroom
on November 13, 2017 (ECF No. 46-1) and by the Clerk's
Office on November 15, 2017. The Motion was styled as an
objection to the Report (ECF No. 46), but all objections were
due by November 2, 2017 (objections were due by October 30,
2017, but an additional three days were added for mailing).
Therefore, Petitioner's Objection ...