Norris v. Jennings

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/22/2010. (mcot, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

G a rro n L. Norris,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) v. ) ) O f c . Carl Jennings, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) _________________________________ )

C /A No. 1:10-1339-JFA-SVH

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Garron L. Norris, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. H e was a detainee at the Cherokee County Detention Center at the time this action was filed. T h e plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated his civil rights and he seeks money damages. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a thorough Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n and opines that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim . The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, a n d the court incorporates such without a recitation. The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on August 26, 2010. Neither party has f ile d objections and the time limit to do so has expired.
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 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).
1

1

A s the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must a lle g e that a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States was violated, a n d that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. W e st v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Here, the plaintiff's allegations relate to verbal

h a ra ss m e n t and the plaintiff cannot show any actions by the defendant violated any federally p ro tec ted right. This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff has failed to a lle g e a claim cognizable under § 1983. A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and in c o rp o ra te s the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without p r e ju d ic e and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

O ctob er 22, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

2