Clark v. Myers

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 13 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 12/29/2011. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

James Edward Clark

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Mr. Myers, Head Director of Alvin
)
Glenn Detention Center,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 1:11-cv-02474-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of Magistrate Shiva V.
Hodges’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on November 21,
2011. Plaintiff filed this action on September 16, 2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983.

Under established local procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate

Judge Hodges made a careful review of the pro se complaint pursuant to the
procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.

Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that this Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service of
process. This Court adopts the magistrate’s recommendation in its entirety.
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally.

Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
Page 1 of 3

those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro
se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a
final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is
made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the
Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation.

Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir.

1983). Plaintiff has filed no objections.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate’s Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its
entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice

Page 2 of 3

and without issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 29, 2011
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the
date of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

Page 3 of 3