Pedroza v. Edgefield Federal Prison et al
Filing
63
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 60 Report and Recommendations, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, re 38 Motion to Di smiss; denying as moot Pedroza's motion for release back into population, re 37 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; denying as moot Pedroza's motion to appoint counsel, re 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 6/16/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Hunberto Fuentes Pedroza,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Edgefield Federal Prison; Mary Mitchell,
)
Warden; Mr. Acosta, Assist. Warden;
)
Mr. Collie, Captain; Mr. Clark, Lt.;
)
Mr. Holet, Lt.; Mr. Neal, C Unit Manager; )
Mr. Mahomes, A Unit Manager; Mr. Boltin, )
A Counselor; Mr. Johnson, C Counselor;
)
Mr. Santiago, S.I.S.; Roper, Unit Officer; )
Upson, Unit Officer; Flores, Unit Officer; )
Kate, Unit Officer; Martin, Unit Officer;
)
Green, Unit Officer; Evans, Unit Officer;
)
Jackson, Unit Manager,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
C.A. No. 0:10-2379-HMH-PJG
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Hunberto Fuentes Pedroza (“Pedroza”), a
federal prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights
and brings this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau
1
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, 270-71 (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).
1
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On January 4, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate
Judge Gossett recommends dismissing Pedroza’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Pedroza timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report on June 14, 2011.
Objections to the 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). 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 that Pedroza’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. In his objections, Pedroza requests that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
(Objections 2, 5, 7.) Because the court dismisses Pedroza’s complaint for failing to exhaust
administrative remedies, dismissal is without prejudice to allow him the opportunity to fully
exhaust administrative remedies.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this
case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett’s Report and Recommendation.
2
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket number 38, is granted and
Pedroza’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that Pedroza’s motion for release back into population, docket number 37,
is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that Pedroza’s motion to appoint counsel, docket number 41, is denied as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
June 16, 2011
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?