Edwards v. Zenk et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTNG THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, transferring plaintiff's complaint to the Northern District of Georgie for further handling, including a ruling on plaintiff's motion for counsel, for 6 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on October 28, 2009. (kbos) [Transferred from South Carolina on 10/30/2009.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA J o s e p h Edwards, #03245-000, ) ) C/A No. 3:09-2340-MBS Plaintiff, ) ) v s. ) ) Mr. Michael A. Zenk, Warden; ) ORDER M r. Romero, Associate, Warden; ) M r . J.E. Stewart, Unit Manager; ) M r. Micheal Howard, SIS Lt.; ) M s . C.C. Gladney, Case Manager; ) M s . Susan Hislop, DHO; and Ms. Leslie L. ) C a r p e n t e r , Case Manager, ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________) P l a i n t i ff Joseph Edwards is an inmate in custody of the Bureau of Prisons. He currently is in c a rc e ra t e d at FCI Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed the w i th in action on September 10, 2009, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated in various r e s p e c t s when he was incarcerated at USP-Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to B iv e n s v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within action was r e fe r r e d to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling. The Magistrate J u d ge reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litiga tio n Reform Act of 1996. On September 22, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n in which he determined that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties. T h e Magistrate Judge noted that the federal court in the Northern District of Georgia is the proper fo r m in which to adjudicate the within action. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that th e court transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On October 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a document in which he stated that did not oppose the transfer o f the case. Plaintiff also requested the appointment of counsel. T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to give any e x p l a n a t i o n for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the M a gis tra te Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by re fe re n c e . Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is transferred in the interests of justice to the United S ta te s District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for further handling, including a ruling on P l a i n t i ff' s motion for counsel. I T IS SO ORDERED.

/ s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina O c to b e r 28, 2009

2