Martin v. Medical of Anderson County Detention Center et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/22/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Alfred Donnie Martin, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Medical of Anderson County Detention
)
Center, for the year of 2012; Anderson
)
County Sheriff John Skipper; Major Bryant, )
of Anderson County Detention Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 2:14-279-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff was advised of his right to
file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 10 at 5). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the
Report, and the time to do so has now run. In fact, the Report and Recommendation which was
mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address was returned undeliverable. Plaintiff was advised by
order filed March 13, 2014, of his responsibility to notify the court in writing if his address
changed and that his case could be dismissed for failing to comply with the court's order.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 10) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
May 22, 2014

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.