Duncan v. Boltin et al

Filing 42

ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; dismissing as moot 17 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing as moot 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; dismissing as moot 34 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/24/2016.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Jimmy Lee Duncan, Jr.,

C/A No. 2:15-cv-860-JFA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Lisa Boltin, Donna Faris, and Capt.
Jody Taylor,
Defendants.

Jimmy Lee Duncan, Jr. (“Duncan”) filed this pro se action while confined at the Colleton
County Detention Center. Duncan brought an action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code,
Section 1983 against Defendants Boltin, Faris, and Taylor on or about February 23, 2015. (ECF
No. 1). Duncan states that he seeks an injunction asking Defendants “to obey the revocation
order signature [sic] by the Honorable Perry M. Buckner on May 19th 2014.” Id. Even though
Duncan states that he is seeking declaratory relief, what he is actually seeking is release from the
community supervision program that he was previously assigned to.
On May 4, 2015, Defendant Boltin filed an Answer and a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
16; ECF No. 17). On November 10, 2015, Defendant Taylor filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 34). Duncan filed responses to both of these motions as well as a Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 23; ECF No. 37).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the Complaint in this case

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and that the pending motions (ECF No. 17; ECF No. 23;
ECF No. 34) be dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 39). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation.
Duncan was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on February 1, 2016. However, Duncan did not file objections. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation. All of the pending motions (ECF No. 17; ECF No. 23; ECF No.
34) are dismissed as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 24, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
2