Sheppard v. Myrtle Beach Police Jail et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report 10 is adopted by reference in this Order. This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 06/19/2013. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Anthony W. Sheppard,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Myrtle Beach Police Jail; Richland County )
Sheriff Dept.; Richland County
)
Solicitor’s Offs.; Richland County Clerk
)
of Court; General Sessions Court; Public
)
Defenders Office; Holding Jail; Horry
)
County Solicitor’s Office; Horry County
)
Police Dept.; J. Ruben Long Detention
)
Center; Magistrate Phipps, N. Myrtle
)
Beach, SC; Judge Abigail; Shannon
)
Campbell; Teressa Odom; Tonya Tyler;
)
Christy L. Miller; Gainey Sheppard, and
)
James Rogers,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 4:13-1380-CMC-TER

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On May 31, 2013, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements
for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on June 17, 2013.

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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the conclusion of the Report. Accordingly, the Report is adopted by reference
in this Order.
Plaintiff’s “objections” are copies of material Plaintiff has submitted to various courts
seeking to have his record expunged. See generally Objections (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff presents no
argument or legal authority in response to the Report. Therefore, this matter is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
June 19, 2013

2