Herbert v. Cartledge

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment 22 is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 9/30/2014. (gmil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Robert Fletcher Herbert,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Warden Larry Cartledge of Perry Correctional
Institution SCDC,
Defendant.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:14-1090-JFA-PJG
ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Robert Fletcher Herbert, brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising issues relating to the conditions of his confinement at the South
Carolina Department of Corrections.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment against the defendant. In response,
the defendant confirms he was served on June 11, 2014, making his deadline to timely file
an answer by July 1, 2014. The defendant asserts and the docket confirms that his answer
was filed on July 1, 2014.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment
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

should be denied because it clear that the defendant filed a timely answer to the complaint.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on September 8, 2014. The plaintiff,
however, 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and it is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied. The
Clerk shall return this file to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

September 30, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2