Chandler v. McFadden, No. 1:2016cv02994 - Document 23 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER & OPINION adopting 20 Report and Recommendation; granting Respondent's 8 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing Petition with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/15/2017. (mwal)
Download PDF
Chandler v. McFadden Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Terrell Chandler, #300938, Petitioner, vs. Warden Joseph McFadden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 1:16-2994-HMH-SVH OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 1 of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 8, is granted. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina May 15, 2017 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.