Opinion
C/A No.: 2:11-203-JFA-BHH
02-16-2012
Norman T. Dais, Petitioner, v. J.C. Holland, Respondent.
ORDER
The pro se petitioner, Norman T. Dais, is a prisoner currently housed at Federal Correctional Institution in Kentucky. He has filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his two South Carolina state court convictions.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation and opines that the respondent's motion for summary judgment should be granted and petitioner's motion should be denied. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on January 26, 2012. Petitioner, however, failed to file objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to given any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the § 2254 petition is denied. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that the defendant has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 16, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge