Beaton v. State of South Carolina, No. 9:2020cv02096 - Document 22 (D.S.C. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER- The court adopts and incorporates Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry's 20 Report and Recommendation by reference into this Order. Petitioners 15 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 11/16/2020.(cpeg, )

Download PDF

Beaton v. State of South Carolina 9:20-cv-02096-CMC Date Filed 11/16/20 Entry Number 22 Page 1 of 3 Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Vincent Jerode Beaton, C/A No. 9:20-2096-CMC Petitioner, v. Opinion and Order Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent. This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se petition filed in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 on June 3, 2020. ECF No. 1. 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly A. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 15, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending this matter be dismissed. ECF No. 20. As noted in the Report, Petitioner appears to challenge his Charleston County murder conviction from 2005. Such a challenge would be successive, as Petitioner has filed two previous petitions under §2254 challenging that conviction. See Beaton v. McFadden, No. CV 9:17-0025, ECF No. 18 (D.S.C. May 17, 2017); Beaton v. McCall, No. CV 9:13-2336 (D.S.C. May 8, 2014). The Report also recommended dismissal if the petition is construed as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. 1 Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on September 21, 2020. ECF No. 15. Dockets.Justia.com 9:20-cv-02096-CMC Date Filed 11/16/20 Entry Number 22 Page 2 of 3 Petitioner filed no objections within the time for doing so, and his copy of the Report was not 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. 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). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference into this Order. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. 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). 2 9:20-cv-02096-CMC Date Filed 11/16/20 Entry Number 22 Page 3 of 3 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina November 16, 2020 3

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.