Wolfe v. Byars et al

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Magistrate Judges recommendation and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, defendant Byars is dismissed without prejudice from this action.This matter shall be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/23/2013. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Sylvester Wolfe,
Plaintiff,
vs.
William R. Byars, Jr.; Dr. Thomas E. Bryne,
MD; and Warden John M. Pate,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 4:13-2005-JFA-TER

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Sylvester Wolfe, brings this pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The plaintiff is incarcerated
with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He seeks damages for allegations of
medical indifference by the defendants.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and suggests that defendant Byars be summarily dismissed from this
action. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and

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 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

Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on August 21, 2013. However, the
plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. 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).
The Magistrate Judge opines that the allegations fail to state a plausible § 1983 claim
for medical indifference and/or supervisory liability against defendant Byars. This court
agrees.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and incorporates
the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, defendant Byars is dismissed without prejudice
from this action.
This matter shall be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

September 23, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2