United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Richard Mark Gergel, United States District Court Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, recommending the petition for habeas
relief be summarily dismissed. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and
dismisses the petition for habeas relief. I.
Background Petitioner is a pretrial detainee at the
Charleston County Detention Center. Plaintiff alleges that
his constitutional rights were violated in June 2015 when the
state court refused to dismiss criminal charges currently
pending against him when neither his court-appointed counsel
nor the complaining witness attended an initial appearance
hearing. Plaintiff also alleges that his constitutional
rights were violated in 1998 when he was convicted of
undisclosed charges and incarcerated. Petitioner also makes
allegations about conditions at the Charleston County
Detention Center. Plaintiff seeks release from custody and
$52 million in damages. On December 8, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge recommended summary dismissal of the petition for
habeas relief. Petitioner filed no objections to the Report
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."
Id. When a proper objection is made to a particular
issue, "a district court is required to consider all
arguments directed to that issue, regardless of whether they
were raised before the magistrate." United States v.
George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992). However,
"[t]he district court's decision whether to consider
additional evidence is committed to its discretion, and any
refusal will be reviewed for abuse." Doe v.
Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 183 & n. 9 (4th Cir.2002).
"[A]ttempts to introduce new evidence after the
magistrate judge has acted are disfavored" though the
district court may allow it "when a party offers
sufficient reasons for so doing." Caldwell v.
Jackson, 831 F.Supp.2d 911, 914 (M.D. N.C. 2010)
styles his action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. However, he names
35 persons as Respondents. That, combined with the
petition's allegations regarding conditions at the
Charleston County Detention Center and the prayer for money
damages, may evidence a desire to assert § 1983 claims
relating to conditions of confinement. In addition to $52
million in damages, however, Petitioner seeks release from
custody. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) Moreover, Petitioner has filed
more than thirty meritless cases in this Court, and,
consequentially, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 may bar him by from
filing a § 1983 action in forma
pauperis, though it cannot bar him from filing a
habeas action in forma pauperis. See Smith v.
Angelone, 111 F.3d 1126, 1131 (4th Cir. 1997). The Court
therefore declines to construe the present petition for
habeas relief as a conditions of confinement action under
§ 1983. In a habeas action, the proper respondent is the
custodian of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). In this case, the custodian is
Sheriff Al Cannon. For that reason, the Court summarily
dismisses all named Respondents except Sheriff Al Cannon. The
habeas claim against Sheriff Al Cannon is subject to summary
dismissal because it is duplicative of Petitioner's
habeas claim in Odom v. Director, Charleston County
Detention Center, Civ. No. 5:17-1906-RMG-KDW (D.S.C.Nov.
2, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-7511 (4th Cir.
Nov. 15, 2017).
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.
11) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
petition for habeas relief.
governing law 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).
U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this
court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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 ...