Opinion
21-cv-3646-JD-PJG
11-02-2022
Gussie Henry Hilton, Jr., Petitioner, v. Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent.
ORDER AND OPINION
JOSEPH DAWSON, III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report and Recommendation” or “Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) of the District of South Carolina.(DE 34.) Gussie Henry Hilton, Jr. (“Petitioner” or “Hilton”), a state prisoner, brought this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) without the aid of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising four grounds for relief. (DE 1.) Respondent Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution (“Respondent” or “BRCI”), filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 3, 2022 (DE 26). Thereafter, on June 30, 2022, the magistrate judge issued the Report, recommending Respondent's motion be granted and the Petition denied. (DE 34.) For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the Report and grants Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 50).
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
BACKGROUND
The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this Court incorporates herein without a full recitation. However, the Court provides this brief background of the case. Hilton was indicted and plead guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, and three counts of kidnapping in the Charleston County Court of General Sessions. (DE 34, p. 2.) Hilton was subsequently sentenced to life in prison. (Id.) Hilton's appeal was dismissed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. (Id.) Hilton filed an application for post-conviction release (“PCR”), raising the single issue that his guilty plea was entered involuntarily because of trial counsel's ineffectiveness. (Id.) The PCR court denied Hilton's PCR application, and his subsequent appeal was transferred from the South Carolina Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals where it was dismissed. (Id.) Hilton then filed the current Writ of Habeas Corpus on four grounds: (1) lack of evidence regarding kidnapping, (2) false statement by the police, (3) lack of evidence to give a life sentence, and (4) ineffective counsel at sentencing. (DE 1, pp. 5-10.) Thereafter, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 26), Hilton filed a response (DE 29), and Respondent filed a reply (DE 31.)
On June 30, 2022, the magistrate judge issued the Report. (DE 34.) The Report found Hilton's first three habeas grounds concerned the sufficiency and reliability of evidence the State had against him, and he waived any right to challenge such evidence because he plead guilty. (DE 34, p. 8.) As to Hilton's fourth ground for relief, the Report found he failed to show that the PCR court's decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. (Id. at 9.)
DISCUSSION
On July 15, 2022, Hilton filed objections to the Report (DE 36), Respondent filed a response (DE 37) thereto, and Petitioner has replied (DE 38). However, to be actionable, objections to a report and recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n. 4 (4th Cir. 1984). “The Supreme Court has expressly upheld the validity of such a waiver rule, explaining that ‘the filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (2005) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)). “A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate judge's report is tantamount to a failure to object.” Tyler v. Wates, 84 Fed.Appx. 289, 290 (4th Cir. 2003). “Likewise, a mere restatement of the arguments raised in the summary judgment filings does not constitute an ‘objection' for the purposes of district court review.” Nichols v. Colvin, 100 F.Supp.3d 487 (E.D. Va. 2015). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate 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).
Upon review, the Court finds Petitioner Hilton's objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive and/or at the heart of the disputed portions of the Report and Recommendation, or merely restate arguments. Hilton's objections claim: (1) that his confession was “no good” and “wishy-washy” and (2) that the evidence against him was weak. (DE 36, p. 1.) Hilton's objections also list the following federal and state cases and gives a brief summary of the holdings: Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991), Morris v. State, 371 S.C. 278, 639 S.E.2d 53 (2006), Tyler v. State, 437 S.C. 17, 876 S.E.2d 132 (Ct. App. 2022). (Id. at pp. 2-7.) Hilton's objections regarding his confession and the evidence against him were previously raised, and the magistrate judge considered and comprehensively addressed these issues in the Report. (See DE 34, pp. 8-14.) Additionally, Hilton cites to cases illustrating issues that are not present in the current case or issues he did not raise in any previous proceedings. See Coleman, 501 U.S. 722, Morris, 371 S.C. 278, 639 S.E.2d 53 (2006), Tyler, 437 S.C. 17, 876 S.E.2d 132 (Ct. App. 2022). For example, Hilton seems to cite to Coleman and Morris to illustrate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsel's failure to seek a severance of certain exploitation charges at trial. (DE 36, pp. 2-4.) However, Hilton never raised this issue prior to his objection; furthermore, the courts' rulings on this issue is inapplicable here because Hilton plead guilty and there was no trial. Thus, the cases Hilton cites to are unrelated to the dispositive and/or at the heart of the disputed portions of the Report.
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 50) is granted, and Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (DE 1) is dismissed. Further, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.