Fletcher v. Pittman

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court finds the Magistrate Judges recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 01/27/2012. (dsto, )

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

Andre Fletcher,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mr. Pittman, Case Worker,
Defendant.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 4:11-2851-JFA-TER

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Andre Fletcher, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming violations of his constitutional rights with regard to his “max-out” date. At the time
his complaint was filed, the plaintiff was an inmate at the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (SCDC). It appears that the plaintiff was released from the custody of the SCDC
on or about November 1, 2011.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should summarily dismiss this action
without prejudice. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge opines that the claims against the
defendant are really against the SCDC for damages and that SCDC has immunity from suit
in this court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further,
the Magistrate Judge opines, regarding the claims against Mr. Pittman in his individual

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

capacity, that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and he has failed to do so within the time limits prescribed.

In the

absence of specific objections to the Report 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).
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 and
incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 27, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2