Opinion
8:20-cv-00800-TLW
03-21-2022
Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, PETITIONER v. State of South Carolina, City of Columbia South Carolina, RESPONDENTS
ORDER
TERRY L. WOOTEN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned. ECF No. 98. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted, that the petition be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing, and that various motion filed by Petitioner be denied. Petitioner filed objections to the Report. ECF Nos. 109, 110, 111. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the Report, 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. Hous. Auth. of 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 the objections, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 98, is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's objections, ECF Nos. 109, 110, 111, are OVERRULED. Respondent's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 58, is GRANTED. Petitioner's other outstanding motions, ECF Nos. 70, 80, 92, 97, 105, 108, are DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. In order for the Court to issue a certificate of appealability, Rule 11 requires that Petitioner satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which in turn requires that she “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Court concludes that she has not made such a showing, and therefore it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised in this petition. Petitioner is advised that she may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.