Holcomb v. Greenville County Detention Center

Filing 36

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Greenville County, Vandermosten, Manly, Goins, and Gross. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/26/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
RABBI DEAN ALTON HOLCOMB,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
vs.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-3477-MGL-SVH
§
THE MUNICIPALITY OF GREENVILLE
§
COUNTY; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
§
J. VANDERMOSTEN, in his official capacity; §
LT. W. KRAMER, in his official capacity;
§
LT. R. GROSS, in her official capacity;
§
SGT. A. CHAUDHARY, in his official
§
capacity; SGT. GOINS, personally and in his §
official capacity; and C/O D. Manly, personally §
and in his official capacity,
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE
AND SERVICE OF PROCESS AS TO DEFENDANTS
GREENVILLE COUNTY, VANDERMOSTEN, MANLY, GOINS, AND GROSS
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process as to Defendants Greenville County, Vandermosten, Manly, Goins, and Gross.
The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District
of South Carolina.

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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 23, 2014, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections. “[I]n 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of this Court that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and
service of process as to Defendants Greenville County, Vandermosten, Manly, Goins, and Gross
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 26th day of January, 2015, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2