Brown v. Cartledge

Full title: Gifford Brown, Petitioner, v. Warden Cartledge, McCormick Correctional…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 3, 2012

Civil Action No. 1:12-139-TLW-SVH (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:12-139-TLW-SVH

10-03-2012

Gifford Brown, Petitioner, v. Warden Cartledge, McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent.

Terry L. Wooten

ORDER

Petitioner Gifford Brown ("Petitioner") brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1).

The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges to whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (Doc. # 23). Objections were due by September 10, 2012. Petitioner has filed no objections to the Report.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 23). The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED. (Doc. # 16). The Petitioner's application is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED.

The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. October 3, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

Terry L. Wooten

United States District Judge