Bradley v. Berkley County Detention Center
Filing
13
ORDER adopting the 9 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the 1 complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 6/1/2016. (bgoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Lee Dell Bradley,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Berkley County Detention Center
)
(Hill-Finklea D.C.),
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
Civil Action No.: 0:16-cv-01200-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff Lee Dell Bradley, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against
the above named Defendant alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate
Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for
the District of South Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 9. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
R & R at 5.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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
1
The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits.
Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.”).
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo
review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order
to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 9] of the Magistrate Judge. It is
therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
June 1, 2016
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?