Al-Haqq v. Scarborough et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. This case is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice. Additionally, for the reasons enumerated in the Report, this dismissal counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/5/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Bilal A. Al-Haqq,1
Plaintiff,
v.
Joette D. Scarborough (Division Director
Central Classification and Inmate
Records), et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00534-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action
seeking relieve pursuant to Title 42, United States Code Section 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”), that this action be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff has
failed to state a plausible claim for relief in his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) and because
Plaintiff’s claims are legally frivolous. (ECF No. 48). The Report also recommended that this
dismissal count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) due to the frivolous nature of
Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 48 at 20). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 48 at 21). However, Plaintiff 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, 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
1

Plaintiff’s given name is Michael Dion McFadden.
1

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 careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 48), which is incorporated herein by
reference. Accordingly, this case is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice. Additionally, for
the reasons enumerated in the Report, this dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
December 5, 2017
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.

2