McClam v. NLN et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff's motion for extension and appointment of attorney and discovery is denied as moot, for 12 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on July 29, 2013. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

Leo McClam,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ms. Dieisha NLN, Dr. McDonald, N.F.N., )
State of South Carolina.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No.: 3:13-cv-01006-TLW

ORDER
On April 30, 2013, Leo McClam (“Plaintiff”) filed two documents which the Clerk
docketed as a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. #1). The pleadings state that the
Plaintiff has been in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health since
January 4, 2012, that he seeks release, and that he has notified the Court of his need for “help” to
“save [his] life.” (Id.). The pleadings list as defendants “Ms. Dieisha NLN,” “Dr. McDonald
N.F.N.,” and the State of South Carolina. (Id.).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, (Doc. #12) to whom this case had
previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends sua sponte that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. (Id.). Objections were due by June 28, 2013. Plaintiff filed no objections to
the Report; however, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as a “motion to extend time” for “the
next presentation.” He seeks appointment of an attorney and discovery. (Doc. #14). In light of
1

this order accepting the Report and dismissing the case without prejudice, that motion (Doc. #14)
is deemed moot.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the Report, 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).
This Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10) is ACCEPTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff’s document docketed as a motion for extension and seeking appointment of an attorney
and discovery (Doc. #14) is DENIED as moot in light of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____s/Terry L. Wooten____
Chief United States District Judge

July 29, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2