Monge v. Lexington County Jail Medical et al

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 15 is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Lexington County Jail Medical is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 08/27/2014. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Alcides Agustin Monge,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lexington County Jail Medical; Dr. )
William Miles,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-1250-RBH-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff Alcides Agustin Monge (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defen dants Lexington County Jail M edical and Dr. William Miles
(“Defendants”) on April 8, 2014.

See Compl., ECF No. 1. The m atter is bef ore the Court f or

review of the Report and Recomm endation of United States Magist rate Judge Thomas E. Rogers,
III, made in accord ance with 28 U. S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the Dis trict of
South Carolina.1

See R & R, ECF No. 15. In the Repor t and Recommendation, the Magistrate

Judge recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Lexington County Jail
Medical without prejudice and without service of process. See id. at 4.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recomm endation to this Court. The recomm endation
has no presum ptive weight. The responsibility to

make a final determ ination remains with this

Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The C ourt is charged with m aking a
de novo determination of those portions of the Re
objection is made, and the Court m
1

port and Recomm endation to which specific

ay accept, reje ct, or m odify, in whole or in part,

the

The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff' s complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2 ) and 1915A. The Court is m indful of its duty to liberall y
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Repor

t and Recomm endation. In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recomm endation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for a dopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for

clear error in the absence of an objection.

See

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a tim ely filed objecti on, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead
must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear erro r on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in th

is case, the Court finds no clear error.

Accordingly, the Report and Reco mmendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefo re, it is ORDERED Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Lexington
County Jail Medical is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 27, 2014

2