English v. Byars et al

Filing 27

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed withoutprejudice 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.
)
)
William R. Byars, Jr.; R. Saltburg; Cheron M. )
Hess; Ann Hallman; Jannita Gaston;
)
Christopher Floran; and Bradford Drawlinson, )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:13-2858-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
raising various claims of constitutional violations including negligence, loss of good time
credit, and denial of prison grievances.
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.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and

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).

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, the plaintiff has no constitutional right to be
housed in a particular institution; the Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance
procedures; and claims of negligence are not actionable under § 1983.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, 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