English v. Bush et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting and incorporating 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/5/2017. (mwal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Roderick Jerome English,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden Bush and Ms. Gause,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:17-2040-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Roderick Jerome English, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. He seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the State to take actions
including corrections to his SCDC records regarding custody and to change his address for
his Social Security check. He also seeks damages.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be summarily dismissed. The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

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

Report and Recommendation which was entered on the docket on August 23, 2017. The
plaintiff did not file objections, and the time within which to do so has since expired. 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).
The Magistrate Judge correctly opines that this court has no jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1361 or § 1651 to grant plaintiff’s requests for mandamus relief. In addition, the
Magistrate Judge correctly suggests that the plaintiff has failed to allege a constitutional
violation with regard to his Social Security check and forwarding address.
The court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the
Report and Recommendation, and finds the Magistrate’s suggested disposition is proper. For
the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein
by reference and this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 5, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2