Summary
finding that the petitioner's bare allegations that he was denied access to adequate legal resources were not sufficient, standing alone, to entitle him to equitable tolling
Summary of this case from Jones v. LaneOpinion
C/A No. 9:05-0753-GRA-GCK.
October 27, 2005
ORDER (Written Opinion)
I. BACKGROUND
This matter is before the Court for a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., and filed on September 30, 2005. Petitioner brought this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 8, 2005. On June 15, 2005, the Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 18, 2005, the Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition, followed by an Amended Response on August 30, 2005. The magistrate recommends granting Respondents' motion for summary judgment.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner proceeds pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make 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, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id.
Parties must file with the clerk of court specific, written objections to the Report and Recommendation if they wish the United States District Judge to consider their objections. Any written objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn. 1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). "Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific 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. 1993). Objections to the Report and Recommendation have not been filed.
III. CONCLUSION
After a careful review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that the report is based upon proper law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.