IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Michael Wilson Pearson, C/A. No. 5:23-2693-CMC

Petitioner,

v. Order Warden of Evans Correctional Institution,

Respondent.

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. Petitioner challenges his South Carolina convictions, arguing he was entitled to a directed verdict at trial and his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to sever the trial.

In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On November 6, 2023, Respondent filed a return and a motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 29. A Roseboro Order was mailed to Petitioner, advising him of the importance of a dispositive motion and the need to file an adequate response. ECF No. 30. Petitioner filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 51) and Respondent filed a reply (ECF No. 55). On July 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending Respondent’s summary judgment motion be granted and Petitioner’s application denied. ECF No. 61. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No objections have been received, and the time for filing has expired. Petitioner’s copy of the Report has not been returned to the court. 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. See Matthews v. Weber,

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted). After reviewing the application, the motion, the applicable law, and the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted. This matter is dismissed with prejudice.

2 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).

(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(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. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina August 27, 2024

3