Fetherson v. Blackmon et al

Filing 22

ORDER adopting the 13 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process only as to Lancaster County Sheriff Office and County of Lancaster. Plaintiff's remaining claims as to Lieutenant Monty Lee Blackmon remain pending before the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., on 12/12/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Dana Fetherson, #302558,

C/A No. 0:16-3189-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Lieutenant Monty Lee Blackmon, Lancaster
County Sheriff Office, County of Lancaster,
Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Dana Fetherson (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lieutenant Monty Lee Blackmon, Lancaster County Sheriff’s
Office, and the County of Lancaster. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
& 1915A. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the
case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the complaint in this case
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Lancaster County
Sheriff’s Office and Lancaster County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 13). The Report

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(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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).

sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court
incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Plaintiff was advised of his right to
object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on October 28, 2016. The Magistrate Judge
gave Plaintiff until November 17, 2016, to file objections. However, Plaintiff failed to file any
objections to the Report.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the
absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this Court is not required
to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process only as to Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office and the County of
Lancaster. The remaining claims as to Lieutenant Monty Lee Blackmon remain pending before
the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 12, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2