Dantzler v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. It is the judgment of this Court that the action is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 3/31/2016.(ssam, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION OSCAR LEE DANTZLER, Plaintiff, § § § vs. § § SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF § CORRECTIONS; MS. JAMISON, A.C.I.; § WARDEN WILLIAMS, A.C.I.; STEPHANIE § WILLIS, South C.D.C.; and MRS. MOORE, § A.C.I., § Defendants. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-04662-MGL ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the action be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 18, 2016, and the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff’s objections to the Report on March 31, 2016. The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly. In Plaintiff’s objections, he makes no specific objections to the Report. Instead, he generally reiterates claims that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Because the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of those issues, it need not discuss them again here. Therefore, it will overrule Plaintiff’s objections. After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the action is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 31st day of March, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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?