Salters v. Tucker et al

Filing 47

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court has carefully reviewed the record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judges Report, (ECF No. 34 ), and finding no clear error in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly,Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby summarily DISMISSED as to Defendants Todd Tucker and Karen Parott. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 05/13/2015. (dsto, )

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

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
Todd Tucker;
Karen Parott, and
)
Lt. Joseph Cooper,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
Richard D. Salters, II,

Civil Action No.: 4:13-01612-MGL

ORDER

On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff Richard D. Salters, II, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action alleging constitutional violations construed as pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of South
Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for review pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and § 1915A. On November 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge prepared a Report and
Recommendation, (“the Report”), recommending that Defendants Todd Tucker and Karen Parott
be dismissed from this case. (ECF No. 34). Objections to the Report were due by December 4,
2014. Plaintiff did not file any Objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for review by
this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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). In the absence of a timely filed Objection, a district
court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 34), and finding no clear
error in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby summarily DISMISSED as to Defendants Todd Tucker and
Karen Parott.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
May 13, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina