Germany v. Alvin S Glenn Detention Center et al

Filing 11

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 7 Report and Recommendations, dismissing case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/8/2010. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA J a m e s Jack Germany, Jr., #327729, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v s. ) ) Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, ) R ic h la n d County, ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________)

C/A No. 0:10-1026-MBS

ORDER

P la in tiff James Jack Germany, Jr. is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department o f Corrections. Plaintiff currently is housed at the Ridgeland Correctional Institution in Ridgeland, S o u th Carolina. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on April 26, 2010, alleging that he w a s attacked by another inmate in September 2007 when he was detained at the Alvin S. Glenn D e t e n t io n Center in Richland County, South Carolina. Plaintiff brings this complaint pursuant to 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge re v ie w e d the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and the Prison Litiga tio n Reform Act of 1996. On May 14, 2§010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n in which she recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed because (1 ) Defendant Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center is not a "person" for purposes of § 1983, and (2) D e fe n d a n t Richland County cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiff file d no objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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 a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo r e v i e w , but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in o rd e r to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and adopts the Report and Recommendation. P la in tiff's complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of p ro c e s s . IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina J u n e 8, 2010.

N O T I C E OF RIGHT TO APPEAL P l a i n tif f is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2