Opinion
C.A. No. 0:09-1444-TLW.
August 23, 2010
ORDER
The petitioner, who is represented by counsel seeks habeas corpus relief under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Doc. # 1). The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum on September 10, 2009. (Docs. # 15 and # 16). On November 30, 2009, petitioner, through counsel, filed a response in opposition to the respondent's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 22).
This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends that the respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. # 24). Petitioner has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 25).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 24), petitioner's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 25); respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 15) and this petition is DISMISSED.
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings and 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Applying the provisions set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), this Court concludes that it is appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to all issues raised herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.