Gilchrist v. Edwardson et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Upon consideration Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 16 and 17 ) are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court respectfully declines to follow the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recomme ndation 12 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before February 21, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall return this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/10/2014. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie B. Edwardson, Detective of Marion
County Sheriff Dept.; James Lee; Neal Ross,
Marion County Sheriffs, and Mark K.
Richardson, Sheriff of Marion County,
Civil Action No.: 4:13-3512-MGL
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Alfred Gilchrist (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner incarcerated at the Ridgeland
Correctional Institution in Ridgeland, South Carolina, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South. The Magistrate Judge
prepared a Report and Recommendation and opined that the complaint was subject to summary
dismissal and should be dismissed without prejudice and without service of process for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 12).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
On January 9, 2014, Plaintiff moved pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to Amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff also moved for an extension of time
to bring his complaint into proper form. (ECF No. 16). Upon consideration Plaintiff’s motions
(ECF Nos. 16 and 17) are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court respectfully declines to follow the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before February 21, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall return this matter to the Magistrate Judge
for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
January 10, 2014
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?