Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0000593.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:51:58+00:00

Document:
Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent.
R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
Petitioner Andrew Davion Burnside, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III. See ECF Nos. 23 & 25. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Petitioner's § 2254 petition without an evidentiary hearing. R & R at p. 24.
The State of South Carolina indicted and tried Petitioner for trafficking cocaine base, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, distribution of cocaine base, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. See ECF No. 15-1 at pp. 296-303. The jury convicted him of all charges, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences resulting in twenty-five years of actual imprisonment. See ECF No. 15-1 at pp. 234-35, 288. Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals summarily affirmed in an unpublished opinion. See ECF Nos. 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, & 15-5. Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court. See ECF No. 15-1 at pp. 237-46. After holding a hearing at which Petitioner and his trial counsel testified, the PCR court issued a written order denying and dismissing the PCR application with prejudice. Id. at pp. 253-95. Petitioner filed a Johnson petition for a writ of certiorari from the denial of his PCR application, and the South Carolina Supreme Court summarily denied the Johnson petition and remitted the case. See ECF Nos. 15-11, 15-12, 15-13, & 15-14.
Petitioner then filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. Respondent answered by filing a return and a motion for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 14 & 15. The Magistrate Judge issued an R & R recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismiss Petitioner's § 2254 petition without an evidentiary hearing. R & R at p. 24. Petitioner filed timely objections to the R & R, and Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner's objections. See ECF Nos. 25 & 27.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see generally Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . ., to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.”); Brandt v. Gooding, 636 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ‘applies to habeas proceedings.'” (quoting Maynard v. Dixon, 943 F.2d 407, 412 (4th Cir. 1991))). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . .; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). “The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, with all reasonable inferences drawn in that party's favor. The court therefore cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.” Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cty., 789 F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

References: § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2254
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.