Summary
holding that although the petitioner opted to plead guilty, he was nonetheless "given a full and fair chance to litigate the present issue in state court and federal habeas review is not available"
Summary of this case from Clea v. PateOpinion
C.A. No. 9:07-1315-TLW-GCK.
February 26, 2008
ORDER
The pro se petitioner, an inmate at the South Carolina Department of Corrections, seeks habeas corpus relief under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Doc. # 1). The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on August 15, 2007. (Doc. # 20). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the petitioner was advised by Order filed August 16, 2007 that he had thirty-four (34) days to file any material in opposition to the motion for summary judgement. (Doc. # 22). Petitioner filed a response to the respondent's motion for summary judgement on October 11, 2007. (Doc. # 27). This matter is now before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted. The Report was filed December 11, 2007. No objections to the Report have been filed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report 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. No objections have been filed to the Report. 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).
A review of the record indicates that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 29), and respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. # 20).