You're viewing Docket Item 32 from the case Fickens v. Cartledge. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




2:12-cv-02618-JFA Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

George W. Fickens,

vs.

Larry Cartledge, Warden,

Petitioner,

____________________________________

Respondent.

) C/A No. 2:12-2618-JFA-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, George W. Fickens, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging his state court conviction. The respondent has filed a motion for

summary judgment and the petitioner has responded with his own motion to dismiss.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and

1

Recommendation wherein she opines that the court should dismiss this action under Rule

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant

facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.



The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 14, 2013, however neither party

has filed objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

2:12-cv-02618-JFA Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 32 Page 2 of 2

Judge, 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).

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and

Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and

incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26)

is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2).

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because the

petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2009). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 the instant matter, the court finds that the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.”

2