Clark v. Aiken Department of Public Safety et al

Filing 25

Order vacating the 15 Report and Recommendation and returning this action to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 5/22/2018. (bgoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Blake Marcell Clark,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Aiken Department of Public Safety; Terrance
Fredrick Pattern; J. Waltower; B. Bethmann;
and D. Drasher,
Defendants.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 1:18-325-JFA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Blake Marcell Clark, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging various claims that his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of prosecution.
The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 15), which was entered on the docket on April 6, 2018. On May
1, 2018 the plaintiff filed an objection to the Report (ECF No. 19), seeking to reopen his
filing period, file an amended complaint, and otherwise comply with the previous orders of
the Magistrate Judge. In his objections to the Report, the plaintiff explains that he was a
pretrial detainee at the time the complaint was filed and that he was subsequently transferred
to the SCDC. He also contends that he did not receive the Report and Recommendation until
April 12, 2018.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 20) and submitted

proposed summons forms.
Because the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and wishes to proceed with this
action, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is vacated and this action is
returned to the Magistrate Judge for further handling of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 22, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2