Harris v. Charleston Detention Center et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 11 Report is ACCEPTED; Plaintiff's 16 objections are OVERRULED; and the Complaint in this action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/1/2011. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tommy L. Harris, Jr.,
Charleston Detention Center; and
Sheriff Al Cannon,
C.A. No. 2:11-964-TLW-JRM
The Plaintiff has brought this pro se action against the Defendants under Title 42, United
States Code, Section 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to
whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that the Complaint
in this action be dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. # 11).
The Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 16).1
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
The Court notes that on August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of
time to file his objections, which were due on August 18, 2011. His objections were then filed
on August 17, 2011. Accordingly, this motion is now MOOT. (Doc. # 15).
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either
case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ACCEPTED (Doc. # 11); Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 16); and the Complaint
in this action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 1, 2011
Florence, 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?