From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Apr 18, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-02106-MGL-KDW (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-02106-MGL-KDW

04-18-2016

JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PETITIONER'S PETITION, AND DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This case was filed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Respondent's motion for summary judgment be granted, and Petitioner's petition be denied. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 10, 2016, and the Clerk of Court entered Petitioner's objections on April 8, 2016. The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.

Petitioner generally makes the same arguments in his objections that he made to the Magistrate Judge. Because the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's treatment of Petitioner's contentions, it need not repeat the discussion and analysis here. Suffice it to say that Petitioner's objections will be overruled.

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Petitioner's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the petition is DENIED. Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 18th day of April, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis

MARY GEIGER LEWIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Petitioner is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Williams v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Apr 18, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-02106-MGL-KDW (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 2016)
Case details for

Williams v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Lieber Correctional…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Date published: Apr 18, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-02106-MGL-KDW (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 2016)

Citing Cases

Saunders v. Warden, Broad River Corr. Inst.

This deference requires this court to consider that a defendant is entitled to relief only if 'no rational…