Greene v. Brooks et al
ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. Greene's remaining pending motions, docket numbers 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 17 , 18 , and 19 are dismissed as moot. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 9/1/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Latorey J. Greene, #292916,
Charles Brooks, P.C.R. Attorney;
Wanda H. Carter, Deputy Chief Attorney; )
Patrick Wright, Attorney; Harry O’Conner, )
C. Kelly Jackson, and Suzanne Mayes,
Previous Solicitors of Sumter County;
Howard P. King, Judge Paula H. Thomas, )
and Judge Thomas W. Cooper,
3rd Circuit Judges; Judge Mary R. Herbert, )
Magastrict; and Kenneth Young, Jr.,
Alieen P. Clare, and Robert M. Dudek,
C.A. No. 3:15-2967-HMH-SVH
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Latorey J. Greene (“Greene”), a state
prisoner, proceeding pro se, alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks monetary and
injunctive relief. Further, Greene filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
permits indigent litigants to proceed in federal court without the prepayment of costs and further
allows the court to dismiss a case that fails to state a claim or is frivolous or malicious. 28
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).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (ii). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hodges
recommends dismissing this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
because Greene’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Report &
Recommendation at 6, ECF No. 13.)
Greene 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
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 Greene’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Greene’s objections are without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. It is further
ORDERED that Greene’s remaining pending motions, docket numbers 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18,
and 19, are dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
September 1, 2015
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
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?