Sledge v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 62

ORDER RULING ON 60 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendants' motion to dismiss 55 . This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/18/2012. (abuc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

David A. Sledge,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
United States Department of Justice;
)
Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden Drew;
)
Associate Warden D. Rankin; Captain Delre; )
Lt. L. Jones; L. Shults,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:11-3465-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, David Sledge, is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Bennettsville, South Carolina. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He
contends that the defendants have violated his constitutional rights in connection with a
prison disciplinary conviction of which he was found guilty.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the court should grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss

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

under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court advised the plaintiff in
a Roseboro order of the importance of his adequate response to the motion to dismiss and the
plaintiff filed a timely response. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on August 27, 2012. However, the
plaintiff failed to file objections and the deadline within which to do so has expired. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any 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, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law and it is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 55) is granted, and this
action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 18, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2