Saunders v. Warden of Broad River Prison, No. 2:2016cv01724 - Document 24 (D.S.C. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. The habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/22/2017.(ssam, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Saunders v. Warden of Broad River Prison Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Turuk Saunders, #199803, Plaintiff, v. Warden, Broad River Correctional Instit., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No 2:16-cv-1724-RMG ORDER AND OPINION Turuk Saunders ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 27,2016, seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No.1.) Respondent filed amotion for summary judgment on August 1,2016. (Dkt. No.8; Dkt. No.9.) Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, to which Respondent filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 20; Dkt. No. 21.) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the Magistrate Judge to grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and deny the habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 22.) No objections to the R. & R. have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R. & R. to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate absent objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A de novo review of the record indicates that the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate's R. & R. as the Order of this Court. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. -1Dockets.Justia.com Certificate of Appealability The governing law provides that: (c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (c)(3) The certificate of appealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. February 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -2- United States District Court Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
