Hart v. Piedmont Medical

Filing 11

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 9 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 03/20/2013. (bshr, )

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

Jerome Hart,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Piedmont Medical,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:13-261-JFA-BM

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Jerome Hart, is a federal prisoner. He appears to bring this
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged medical indifference under the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution. However, his claim arises from treatment he allegedly
received at Piedmont Medical for injuries after he was hit by a car in 2002, before he was
incarcerated.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that the plaintiff’s complaint should be summarily
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge also notes that this
is the third attempt by the plaintiff to pursue such a lawsuit in this court. The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on February 21, 2013. However, the
plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report 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).
The Magistrate Judge properly concludes that this court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to plead any
recognizable factual or legal basis for any discernable cause of action as is required under
Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper and is
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. The Clerk shall deem this case a “strike” for
purposes of the three strikes rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

March 20, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2