Filed: Aug. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr. , District Judge . Darryl T. Cook ("Cook") filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 while confined at Broad River Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Cook alleges that his Constitutional rights have been violated based on a number of grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court's reliance on inadmissible evidence 1 . (ECF No. 1). The Respondent filed a m
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr. , District Judge . Darryl T. Cook ("Cook") filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 while confined at Broad River Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Cook alleges that his Constitutional rights have been violated based on a number of grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court's reliance on inadmissible evidence 1 . (ECF No. 1). The Respondent filed a mo..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
Darryl T. Cook ("Cook") filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while confined at Broad River Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Cook alleges that his Constitutional rights have been violated based on a number of grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court's reliance on inadmissible evidence1. (ECF No. 1).
The Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on November 25, 2015. (ECF No. 19). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this Court advised Cook of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the Respondent's motion. (ECF No. 20). Cook filed a timely response on April 4, 2016. (ECF No. 35). The Respondent filed a reply in opposition to Cook's responses on April 14, 2016. (ECF No. 37). Additionally, Cook filed a sur-reply2 to Respondents reply on May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 41).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action3 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation ("Report") and opines that this court should grant the Respondent's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 45). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Cook was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on July 14, 2016. However, Cook failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants the Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) and denies Cook's petition.
Further, because Petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
