Plummer v. Hallman et al

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. #1) be dismissed in its entirety without issuance and without service of process with regard to Defendant R.L. Turner. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/23/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Andrew Sean Plummer #299191,
a/k/a Andrew S. Plummer,
a/k/a Andrew Plummer,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ann Hallman; R.L. Turner; within
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 2:13-cv-01791-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff, Andrew Plummer (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or about July 1, 2013 challenging various conditions
of his confinement at Tyger River Correctional Institute. (Doc. #1).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on August 16, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe
Hendricks, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #10). In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned case without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendant R.L. Turner. (Doc. #10).
The Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report.
The Report was mailed to the Plaintiff at the mailing address the Plaintiff provided to the
Court, and that mail was not returned. (See Doc. #11). The Plaintiff failed to file objections to
the Report recommending dismissal of Defendant R.L. Turner from the above-captioned case.

The deadline for the Plaintiff to file objections to the Report expired on September 3, 2013. (See
Doc. #10).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and all other relevant filings in this matter. After careful consideration, IT IS ORDERED that
the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10) be ACCEPTED. Accordingly, for the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. #1) be
dismissed in its entirety without issuance and without service of process with regard to
Defendant R.L. Turner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
July 23, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2