Strickland vs. Shelly Superor et al

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court finds the Magistrate Judges recommendation 23 proper and incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 06/27/2012. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James S. Strickland, #271958,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Shelly Superor, of Comm. Dpt.; Dr. Moore,
Nurse Shelly; Dr. Babb; Dr. Alewine; Lieber CI,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 4:12-278-JFA-TER

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, James S. Strickland, is an inmate at the Kirkland Reception and
Evaluation Center of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19831 repeating allegations and claims of improper medical care and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement that have been raised, and adjudicated, in prior
actions in this district.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action2 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be dismissed as it is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

1

The plaintiff has filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

2

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 7, 2012. However, the plaintiff
did not file any objections to the Report 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 proper and
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

June 27, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

2