Demorcy v. Roberts et al

Filing 27

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr. This action is dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and any outstanding motions are deemed moot. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/27/10.(hhil, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

J a m e l Alexander Demorcy, P l a in tif f , vs. T yru s Terell Robberts; Director Jon Ozmint; S e c u rity Director Robert Ward; Classification D ire c to r Pernell Cromer; Investigator David H u rt; Investigator James A. Smith; Investigator P o w e ll; Investigator Ms. Scoggins, D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________________

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

C/A No. 2:10-943-JFA-RSC

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Jamel Alexander Demorcy, brings this action pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983 alleging constitutional violations by the defendants. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein he suggests that this action should be dismissed without prejudice u p o n the plaintiff's motion. The Magistrate Judge authorized service of the complaint on the defendants. The d e f e n d a n ts then filed an answer raising various defenses to the plaintiff's claims. On July 2 2 , 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, merely contending that "most th e claims are not in correct forms or otherwise." The defendants responded to the motion

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

1

a n d request that the court dismiss the action with prejudice. In his Report, the Magistrate Judge suggests that the court dismiss this action without p re ju d ic e in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41 and with the provision that the plaintiff b e prohibited from bringing this action again without permission of the court. The

M a g is tra te Judge also suggests that such permission should be granted freely and upon such ter m s as the court then considers proper in light of this dismissal. T h e parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on August 10, 2010. However, none of the parties filed any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. The failure o f the parties to object to the Report And Recommendation not only waives their appellate rig h ts in this matter, but also relieves the court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review o f the issues presented. See Wells v. Shriners Hospital, 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th C ir.1 9 9 7 ); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985). A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and in c o rp o ra t e d herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice u n d e r Rule 41(b) and any outstanding motions are deemed moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S e p te m b e r 27, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

2