Cox v. Ozmint et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing the complaint with prejudice and deeming this dismissal a "strike" under 28 USC 1915(g), for 9 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on April 24, 2012. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Paul Leslie Cox,

#75206,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
S.C. Dept. of Corr. Director Jon E.
)
Ozmint; J.C. Counts;
)
Warden P. Johnson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

C/A No. 3:12-225-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with this 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 objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. # 9 at 6). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report
and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting

the recommendation.

See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Rather, “in the 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 thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (Dkt. # 9) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for frivolousness and this
dismissal is deemed a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See McLean v. United

States of America, 566 F3d. 391, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that a dismissal for
frivolousness that is rendered without prejudice may permit a strike designation).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 24, 2012