Martin v. Jones et al
Filing
35
ORDER adopting 31 Report and Recommendation as modified. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and that this dismissal is hereby D EEMED a strike under the "three strikes" rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/5/2016.(ssam, ) (Main Document 35 replaced on 4/5/2016) (ssam, ). Modified to edit text on 4/5/2016 (ssam, ). (Main Document 35 replaced on 4/5/2016) (ssam, ). Modified to edit text on 4/5/2016 (ssam, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Alfred D. Martin, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Pvt. Jones, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:15-3615-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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
summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and that the
dismissal be counted as a strike under the “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No.
31). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 31 at 11).
Plaintiff, however, filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
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, 27071 (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. 11) as modified1 and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice and without
issuance and service of process, and that this dismissal is hereby DEEMED a strike under the
“three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
April 5, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina
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.
1
The court declines to count the dismissal as a strike.
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?