Allen v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, for 55 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on May 10, 2012. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Darvin Allen, #233800,
Plaintiff,
vs.
South Carolina Department of
Corrections,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 3:10-939-HMH-JRM
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Darvin Allen (“Allen”), a state prisoner,
proceeding pro se, seeks injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.2 In his Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends granting the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment.
Allen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

Allen’s other claims, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and a RLUIPA claim for monetary
damages, were dismissed in a June 6, 2011 order.

accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Allen’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this
case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McCrorey’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 46, is
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 10, 2012

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

2