Irvin v. Greenwood County Detention Center

Filing 17

ORDER adopting the 7 Report and Recommendation and summarily dismissing Plaintiff's case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 8/22/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Thomas Lamont Irvin, Jr.,

C/A No. 0:17-762-JFA-PJG
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
Greenwood County Detention Center,

Defendant.
On or about March 20, 2017, Thomas Lamont Irvin, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendant Greenwood County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1). 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 summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 7). The
Report 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. Petitioner was advised of his right to
object to the Report, which was entered on the docket and mailed to Plaintiff on April 21, 2017.
(ECF Nos. 7–8). The mail was returned as undeliverable, so the documents were re-mailed to an
updated address for Plaintiff on May 11, 2017. (ECF Nos. 12–14). In addition, the deadline to
file objections was extended for another fourteen days from the date of service; however, no
objections were filed. (ECF Nos. 14–16). Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) (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).
1

1

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections to the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, 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. 7) and summarily dismisses Plaintiff’s case without prejudice, and
without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 22, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2