Littlejohn v. Reynolds

Full title: Tron Manuel Littlejohn, 250174 Petitioner, v. Warden Cecilia R. Reynolds…

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

Date published: Sep 16, 2010

Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-1718-TLW-SVH (D.S.C. Sep. 16, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-1718-TLW-SVH.

September 16, 2010

ORDER

TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge

Petitioner, Tron Manuel Littlejohn, ("petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 26, 2009. (Doc. #1).

This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate 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. # 27). Objections to the Report were filed on August 20, 2010. (Doc. # 30). 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 and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 27). Therefore, the Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, (Doc. # 16), and the petition is DISMISSED.

The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. 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.

September 16, 2010

Florence, South Carolina