Turner v. Spartanburg Co Jail Medical Office

Filing 13

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 10 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/16/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

William Christopher Turner,

) Civil Action No.: 1:12-3039-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
Spartanburg County Jail Medical Office,
)
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________
)
Plaintiff William Christopher Turner (“Plaintiff”), proceeding, pro se, is detained at the
Spartanburg County Detention Center. On October 24, 2012, Plaintiff, filed this civil action against
the Spartanburg County Jail Medical Office (“Defendant”), alleging violations of Title 42, United
States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges
for pretrial handling. On November 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hodges issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending inter alia that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice and service of process as Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
as to the sole defendant, Spartanburg County Jail Medical Office. (ECF No. 10 at 4.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 10 at 5.)
Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired. In the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this action
is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
January 16, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina

-2-