Carter v. Reynolds
2:11-cv-02899
D.S.C.Jan 17, 2013Background
- Carter, proceeding pro se, filed a §2254 habeas petition challenging his state-court conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
- Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice to permit authorization from the Fourth Circuit before filing a successive petition.
- The court granted a final extension for objections; Carter’s objections were due Feb. 10, 2012.
- The objections were filed on Feb. 13–15, 2012, making them untimely under Houston v. Lack.
- The objections were non-specific and merely reasserted petition arguments; Carter also moved to amend objections.
- The court accepted the magistrate’s recommendation, dismissed the petition without requiring an answer, and denied Carter’s status update as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether authorization from the Fourth Circuit was required before filing a successive habeas petition. | Carter argues for reconsideration without authorization. | Respondent contends authorization was required. | Petition dismissed for lack of authorization. |
| Timeliness of Carter's objections to the Report. | Objections were timely per extension order. | Objections untimely under filing rules. | Objections untimely; rejected as basis to reverse. |
| Sufficiency and relevance of Carter's objections. | Objections sufficiently raised issues about the recommendation. | Objections were non-specific and repetitive of petition arguments. | Objections deemed non-specific and insufficient to alter outcome. |
| Whether to dismiss the petition without prejudice and without an answer. | Petition should proceed with merits or response. | Dismissal without prejudice appropriate due to authorization issue. | Petition dismissed without prejudice; no answer required. |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue. | Carter seeks COA on alleged constitutional errors. | COA not warranted given lack of substantial showing. | COA denied; standard not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (clear error standard for reviewing magistrate decisions when no timely objections)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (S. Ct. 1988) (prisoner filings deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (de novo review rights and standard for magistrate recommendations)
- Schronce v. United States, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (standards for reviewing magistrate recommendations and objections)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (circumstances under which a district court need not provide further explanation)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (S. Ct. 2003) (standards for substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right in COA context)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (S. Ct. 2000) (COA standard for appellate review of constitutional claims)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) (circuit standard for evaluating COA determinations)