United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on Petitioner's pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Respondent
filed a motion for summary judgment, as well as a return and
memorandum of law on February 4, 2019. ECF Nos. 11, 12. A
Roseboro Order was mailed to Petitioner on February
5, 2019, advising him of the importance of a dispositive
motion and the need to file an adequate response. ECF No. 13.
Petitioner filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 19.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 (B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On April 30, 2019, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that Respondent's
motion for summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 24. The
Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner timely
filed objections on May 13, 2019. ECF No. 26.
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. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a
specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The
court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence
of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(stating that “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.”) (citation omitted).
Petition, Petitioner argues the arrest warrants for first
degree burglary and strong-arm robbery did not contain a
judge's signature and therefore were invalid, and he is
being falsely imprisoned after convictions resulted. ECF No.
1. In return, Respondent argues the Petition is time-barred,
the claim is procedurally defaulted, and fails on the merits.
ECF No. 11. The Magistrate Judge's Report recommends the
Petition be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244. ECF No. 24.
filed one page of objections. ECF No. 26. In his objections,
he argues a federal court should not “entertain state
issues within a federal court system” and therefore
summary judgment should be denied. Id. He also
argues he filed a § 2254 motion yet Respondent discusses
the standard applicable to petitions under 28 U.S.C. §
first objection, regarding this court ruling on “state
issues and state legal arguments” fails. Petitioner
filed this action in this court, and thus cannot complain
when this court adjudicates his petition.
Petitioner appears to object to application of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 to his Petition, which he filed under §
2254. Section 2244 provides the statute of limitations for
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) which governs habeas corpus petitions.
Section 2244 governs when a motion under § 2254 or
§2255 must be filed in order to be timely. It was
correctly applied in this case by the Magistrate Judge.
of the statute of limitations shows this Petition is
untimely. Petitioner's criminal conviction was final in
2010. The limitations period was tolled while his properly
filed PCR application was pending, from February 16, 2011 to
October 1, 2012. When the PCR application was denied, the
statute of limitations resumed, and subsequently expired on
June 6, 2013. The court agrees Petitioner's second,
third, and fourth PCR applications did not toll the statute
of limitations because they were filed beyond the expiration
of the limitations period and were determined to be not
court further agrees Petitioner is not entitled to equitable
tolling. Although he argues his mental health interfered with
timely filing, the court agrees with the Report that
Petitioner has failed to establish a causal relationship
between the mental illness and his inability to timely file
this Petition. Further, he has not established he was
incapacitated due to his mental illness during the statute of
de novo review of the entire record, the applicable law, the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and
Petitioner's objections, the court agrees with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Report
and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference.
Respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted, and