Margarrez v. Edgefield Federal Prison et al
Filing
69
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS declining to adopt 65 Report and Recommendations, granting 34 Motion to Dismiss, denying as moot 54 Motion to Stay, dismissing Margarrez's complaint without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 7/13/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jorge L. Margarrez, #75266-198,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Edgefield Federal Prison;
Mrs. Mary Mitchell, Warden;
Mr. Acosta, Assist. Warden;
Mr. Collie, Captain;
Mr. Santiago, S.I.S.;
Mr. Clark, Lt.;
Mr. Holet, Lt.;
Mr. Neal, C 1 Unit Manager;
Mr. H. Koger, III, B Unit Manager;
Mrs. S. Cheek, B Case Manager;
Mr. J. Bryant, B Counselor;
Mr. Johnson, C Counselor;
Mr. Roper, Unit Officer;
Mr. Upson, Unit Officer;
Mr. Flores, Unit Offficer;
Mr. Kate, Unit Officer;
Mrs. Martin, Unit Officer;
Mr. Green, Unit Officer;
Mr. Evans, Unit Officer;
Mrs. Jackson, Unit Officer;
Mr. Fallen, Assist. Warden;
Mr. S. Smith, Recreation;
Mr. T. Nixon;
Mr. J. Sullivan;
Mr. Sparks;
Mrs. Lathrop;
Mr. L. Morgan, Unit Officer;
Mr. B. Burkett, Unit Officer;
Mr. Wilson, Unit Officer;
Mr. Burkett, Unit Officer;
Mrs. V. Kepner,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 0:10-2467-HMH-PJG
OPINION & ORDER
1
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 Jorge L. Margarrez (“Margarrez”), a
federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), claiming deprivations of his
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss Alcala’s
complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends granting Defendants’ motion. Margarrez timely filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s Report on June 25, 2011.2
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 Margarrez’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to
the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate
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).
2
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
his claims. In his objections, Margarrez concedes that dismissal is appropriate because he has
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and he requests an opportunity to cure his
deficient pleading. (Objections 8-9.) Based on the foregoing, the court dismisses his complaint
without prejudice to allow him the opportunity to file a new complaint.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket number 34, is granted, and
Margarrez’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay, docket number 54, is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
July 13, 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?