Gerald v. Johnson et al
Filing
17
ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/18/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dontest Jabar Gerald,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J. Johnson, Major at J. Reuben Long
Detention Center; and Tom Fox, Director of J.
Reuben Long Detention Center, in their
official capacities,
Defendants.
____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A: 1:15-15-JFA-SVH
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. By Order dated January 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case1 issued
an order authorizing service of process and directing the plaintiff to keep the Clerk advised
of his proper address. The order was returned to the Clerk’s Office as undeliverable, noting
on the envelope that the plaintiff is no longer an inmate at the J. Reuben Long Detention
Center.
The Magistrate Judge has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the
complaint should be dismissed in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
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).
1
Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on January 27, 2015. However, the
plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. 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).
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
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice under
Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 18, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?