Manigault v. Housey et al

Filing 27

ORDER incorporating 14 Report and Recommendation. Defendants Valerie Jackson (Captain/Disciplinary Hearing Officer), Levern Cohen (Warden), and Gary Eichelberger (Major) terminated and dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/25/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Richard Manigault,

C/A No. 0:15-4647-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,
vs.
Albert Housey, Lieutenant; Ryan Grant,
Corporal; Dustin Crosby, Officer; Gary
Eichelberger, Major; Valerie Jackson,
Captain/Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Levern
Cohen, Warden,

ORDER

Defendants.

Richard Manigault (“Manigault”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C
§ 1983 action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein
she recommends that this Court summarily dismiss this case without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process as to Defendants Eichelberger, Jackson, and Cohen. (ECF No. 14). The Report
and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and standards of law in this matter, and the Court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation,
which was entered on the docket on January 22, 2016. However, no objections were filed. 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).

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).

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and properly applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated
herein by reference in its entirety.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process as to Defendants Eichelberger, Jackson, and Cohen. The remaining Defendants, Housey,
Grant, and Crosby, will proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 25, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2