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, )

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