Dixon v. Bryant et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 10 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 01/24/2012. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
John Allen Dixon, Jr., #289945,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sheriff Bruce M. Bryant; Chief Ass.
Admin. Richard L. Martin, Jr.;
Chief Admin. James F. Arwood;
Cpt. Gary Davies; Sgt. K. Millian;
Lt. W. Plemmons; Ofc. D.T. Stewart,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:11-cv-02976-JFA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, John Allen Dixon, Jr., brings this civil action against the
named defendants. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stewart verbally
abused him. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Stewart later assisted
other officers in removing the plaintiff from the shower. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed this
action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff’s complaint should be summarily

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on December 6, 2011. However, the
plaintiff failed to file objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 24, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2