United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
pro se Petitioner, Antwine Matthews
(“Petitioner”), is currently incarcerated in the
South Carolina Department of Corrections. On February 2,
2017, Petitioner brought this action seeking habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“2254
Petition”). (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is proceeding
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. (ECF No. 9).
April 28, 2017, Warden Cecilea Reynolds
(“Respondent”) filed a motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 13) and a return and memorandum (ECF No.
14). By order issued on April 28, 2017, pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
the Petitioner was advised of procedure in regards to the
Motion for Summary Judgment and the possible consequences if
he failed to respond adequately to the Respondent's
Motion. (ECF No. 15). The Petitioner was granted an extension
through June 29, 2017, to file his response. (ECF No. 19).
Petitioner filed a response to Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment on July 5, 2017. (ECF No. 23). Respondent
filed a reply to Petitioner's response on July 12, 2017.
(ECF No. 24).
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge for review. The Magistrate Judge assigned to
this actionhas prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that the
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13)
should be granted. (ECF No. 26 p. 1). The Report sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation
and without a hearing.
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report, which was entered on the docket on October 16, 2017.
(ECF No. 26). The Report provided that Petitioner must file
objections to the Report by October 30, 2017. (ECF No. 26 p.
11). That deadline has now expired, and the Petitioner failed
to file objections to the Report. In the absence of specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this Court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate's recommendations. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendations fairly and
accurately summarize the facts and apply the correct
principles of law. Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 26), GRANTS the Respondent's motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 13), and denies Matthews'
because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, ” a
certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
 Because the Petitioner is proceeding
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
this Court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit
to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the Petition if,
after being liberally construed, the action or appeal is
frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate
Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
 A certificate of appealability will
not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. 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 the instant matter, ...