Wilson v. Byras et al

Filing 61

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court finds the Magistrate Judges recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation 15 is incorporated herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that P laintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process as to Defendant C. Thompson. It is further ordered that all claims against the remaining Defendants be DISMISSESD without prejudice and without service of process, except that process should be issued for Defendants Byras, Wallas and Lewis on the sole claim for denial of credits associated Plaintiffs auto breaking conviction. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 07/25/2012.(dsto)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Irvin Jefferson Wilson
Petitioner,
vs.
William Byras, Director SDCD;
Monica Wallace, Classification SCDC;
B. Lewis, Case Worker SCDC;
C. Thompson, Grievance Co-Ord
SCDC,
Defendants.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No.: 4:11-2837-MGL-TER
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court upon the recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, III that Plaintiff Irvin Jefferson Wilson’s action against Defendant C.
Thompson be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Magistrate Judge also recommended that all claims against Defendants William
Byras, Monica Wallace, and B. Lewis be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process, except that process should be issued for Defendants Byras,
Wallace and Lewis on the sole claim for denial of credits associated with Plaintiff’s
autobreaking conviction. Because this is a pro se complainant seeking relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, this case was automatically referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against
Defendants, alleging that they deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and liberty
interests. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.)

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(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears
Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions
of the Magistrate Judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d
435 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the
Magistrate Judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those
objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93–94 (4th
Cir.1984). No objections have been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation.
After careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation in the case, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to
be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by
reference. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without service of process as to Defendant C. Thompson. It is further
ordered that all claims against the remaining Defendants be DISMISSESD without
prejudice and without service of process, except that process should be issued for
Defendants Byras, Wallas and Lewis on the sole claim for denial of credits associated
Plaintiff’s autobreaking conviction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
July 25, 2012.