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)

Download PDF
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

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?