Taff v. Pate et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 27 Report and Recommendation. The Report is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/14/2014. (gmil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

John T. Taff,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden John Pate; Major Walter Worrick;
Lt. Richard Jenkins; Sgt. Sexton; in their
individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:14-294-JFA-PJG

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, John Taff, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of
Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants
violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force on him and failing to provide him
with proper medical care.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies and that his case was filed prematurely. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The plaintiff was notified of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, however he has failed to do so and the time has now expired. 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 notes in her Report that prisoners must exhaust their
administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516
(2002). The Magistrate Judge indicates that it is clear from the pleading that the plaintiff has
not exhausted his remedies. Thus, the Magistrate Judge suggests dismissal of this action.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 14, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2