Curry v. Haley

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/28/2016. (mwal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

James B. Curry,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Governor Nikki R. Haley,
Defendant.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:16-1677-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, James B. Curry, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to compel the
Governor of South Carolina to respond to his petition for clemency.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without
a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 2, 2016. However, the plaintiff

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

did not file objections and the time within which to do so 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 court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and/or 1651,
this court is without jurisdiction to grant such relief against the State of South Carolina, its
officials or entities.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

July 28, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2