Davis v. Eagleton
Filing
15
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this action without prejudice and without service of process, Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on September 5, 2012. (kbos)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Jerry Davis,
#270224,
) Civil Action No.: 3:12-1292-MGL-JRM
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
AMENDED ORDER AND OPINION
)
Willie Eagleton, Warden,
)
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________
Plaintiff Jerry Davis is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (SCDC). He is currently housed at the Evans Correctional Institution in
Bennettsville, South Carolina. On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to being put on a special diet by medical
personnel. Plaintiff also contends he needs medical treatment because he has high blood
pressure, heart trouble, a broken left arm, and no teeth (Dkt. #1 at 3-5.) In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling. On June 12,
2012, Magistrate Judge McCrorey issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
inter alia that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. On
June 12, 2012, Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. #8 at 8). However, he has not done so. 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
September 5, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?