McClam v. Jefferson et al
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, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
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 )
Case No. 1:15-cv-01363-TLW
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?