James v. Cohen

Full title: Isiah James, Jr., Petitioner, v. Levern Cohen, Warden, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

Date published: Feb 18, 2009

Civil Action No.: 9:07-4163-TLW-BM (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 9:07-4163-TLW-BM.

February 18, 2009

ORDER

TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge

Petitioner, Isiah James, Jr. ("petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 28, 2007. (Doc. #1). The respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 15, 2008. (Doc. #21). The petitioner filed a Response on May 22, 2008. (Doc. #24).

This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #29). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant the respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss this action. (Doc. #29). The petitioner filed initial and supplemental objections to the report. (Doc. #31, Doc. #32). 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 the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report, the initial objections, and the supplemental objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #29). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.