McClam v. Jefferson et al

Filing 10

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 05/05/2015. (bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Leo McClam, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Ms. E. Jefferson, CNA; Ms. B. Washington, ) CNA; Mr. NFN Livingston, Officer; Ms. ) NFN Mae; Ms. NFN Gigger, CNA; Ms. P. ) Francis, Nurse; Dr. NFN Cross, Doctor; ) Judy Dupree, Social Worker; Ms. Jessica ) NLN, Social Worker; Mr. NFN Foster, ) Captain; Ms. NFN Hampton, Officer; ) Dr. Jose Chavez, Doctor; Kia Wilson, Horry ) County Attorney; Ms. Dishia Dave, Social ) Worker; Dr. NFN McDonald, Doctor; ) Ms. Jamesha NLN, Social Worker; ) Ms. Carla NLN, Kitchen Worker; Mr. Ray ) Washington, Kitchen Worker; Sgt. NFN ) Anderson, Captain; Dr. Peggy Wadman, ) Doctor; and Kenny Boone, Sheriff, all ) defendants sued in their own personal and ) individual capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No. 1:15-cv-01363-TLW ORDER Plaintiff Leo McClam, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. (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)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (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. #8). Objections to the Report were due by May 4, 2015. Plaintiff failed to file objections, and this matter is now ripe for disposition. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #8). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, 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 May 5, 2015 Columbia, South Carolina

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?