Harris v. Charleston Detention Center et al

Filing 19

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, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Tommy L. Harris, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -versus) ) Charleston Detention Center; and ) Sheriff Al Cannon, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) C.A. No. 2:11-964-TLW-JRM ORDER 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, 1 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). 1 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 omitted). 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 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?