Civil Action No.:9:07-1670-TLW-GCK.United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division.
July 23, 2008
ORDER
TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge
On June 19, 2007, the petitioner, Joseph Andrew Davis, (“petitioner”) proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. (Doc. #1). The case was automatically referred to United States Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), DSC. The respondent, Warden Michael Pettiford, (“respondent”) filed a motion for summary judgment on October 19, 2007. (Doc. #14). On October 23, 2007, Magistrate Judge Kosko issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising petitioner of his responsibility to properly respond to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #15). Petitioner filed a response on November 16, 2007. (Doc. #17).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Kosko, to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #24). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Kosko recommends that “respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and the petition dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.” (Doc. #24). The petitioner has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. #26).
Page 2
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed the Report. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #24). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that respondents’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED (Doc. #14) and the petitioner’s complaint DISMISSED. (Doc. #1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.