English v. Khan et al

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/1/2014.(abuc)

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

Roderick Jerome English,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
T. Benjamin Arthur McLamb; Ann M. Dwyer; )
Pravin R. Patel; Fazal Khan; Richard S.
)
Johnson; LPN Michelle D. Fox; Sylvia Roberts; )
Amoret Floyd; Joann Boards; Adrienne N.
)
Logan; Terrie Leonard; RN Powell; Eileen
)
Delaney; and Donna Lo’Daniel,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:13-2857-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Roderick Jerome English, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
contending that the defendants failed to provide him with his medications in 2004 and 2005.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be summarily dismissed. The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.

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).

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. His response to the Report merely repeats the claims in his original
complaint and provides no specific objection to the Report. 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).
As the Magistrate Judge properly opines, to the extent the plaintiff alleges deliberate
indifference to his medical needs by the defendants in 2004 and 2005, his claims are barred
by the statute of limitations, which under South Carolina law is three years. As this court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law causes of action raised in
the complaint, plaintiff’s request for this court to transfer his case to Richland County to
avoid a new filing fee is denied.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
proper and adopts and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

April 1, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2