Norris v. Crocker et al

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and incorporated 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 8/6/2010. (mcot, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA G a r ro n L. Norris, P l a in tif f , vs. C a p t . Harold Crocker; Nurse Margaret Lewis; D o ctor S. Bianca; Sgt. Parker, D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 1:10-1480-JFA-SVH

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Garron L. Norris, brings this action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleg ing that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying plaintiff his seizure m ed i c a t io n s. The plaintiff is an inmate at the Cherokee County Detention Center. 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 ti o n and opines that the complaint should be dismissed because the issues in th is complaint are duplicative of another action pending before this court. The Report sets fo rth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court in c o rp o ra te s such without a recitation and without a hearing. T h e plaintiff was advised of his 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 June 28, 2010. 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 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

d id not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. The Magistrate Judge correctly suggests that plaintiff's claim of negligence resulting in his injury at the prison is not actionable under § 1983. With regard to plaintiff's claim of d e n ia l of his seizure medication, such matter is currently being addressed in another case p e n d in g before this court. Therefore, the present action should be summarily dismissed in th e interests of judicial economy and efficiency. After 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 proper and in c o rp o ra te d herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and w ith o u t issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

A u g u s t 6, 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