James v. Lancaster Sheriff Department et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Inquiry of Judges Opinion. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/1/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jesse M. James,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lancaster Sheriff’s Department, et al.
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A: 0:13-210-JFA-SVH

ORDER

On July 30, 2013, this court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and dismissed this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The
plaintiff has filed a post-judgment pleading entitled “Motion for Inquiry of Judge’s Opinion.” Here,
the plaintiff asks the court to help him “find out and show me what authority, statutes, and/or case
laws that the Honorable Anderson, Jr. produced to dismiss this case without prejudice.” The plaintiff
indicates his intent to further pursue and resubmit his § 1983 action against the defendants.
The Report fully sets out the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of statutory and case law upon
which she relied in recommending dismissal of this action. This court found such reasoning and
analysis to be proper and adopted and incorporated the Report into its order of dismissal without a
full recitation of the relevant facts and standards of law which were already set out in the Report.
Accordingly, it is not necessary for this court to further explain its reasoning in another order or
opinion for the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 29) is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 1, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge