Davis v. Boome et al

Filing 16

ORDER accepting 9 Report and Recommendation. This case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 4/6/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
MILDENZEL MALCOLM DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KENNY BOOME; CPT. BRUNSON;
)
LT. REDDING; LT. GABRIEL; and
)
MAJ. NORRIS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 1:14-cv-00422-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Mildenzel Malcolm Davis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional rights by employees
of the Florence County Detention Center. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva
V. Hodges, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.).

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court

dismiss the case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. #9).
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report on March 3 and March 7, 2014 (Doc. #11, 12), and
this matter is now ripe for disposition.
In conducting its review of the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate

judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law.1 It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #9), and Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED
(Doc. #11, 12). This case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
April 6, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

1

Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint can only be construed as seeking
equitable and injunctive relief. Plaintiff notified the Court on April 18, 2014, that he was
released from custody and now lives at a private residence. (Doc. #15). Because Plaintiff is no
longer incarcerated, his claims for equitable and injunctive relief with respect to prison
conditions are now moot.