Cleveland v. Evans Correctional Institution et al

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 14 is adopted and incorporated by reference. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Graves is DISMISSED as a party defendant wi thout service of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's claims related to his dissatisfaction with the available educational and vocational offerings while incarcerated are DISMISSED. Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 13 , is DENIED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/4/2014. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden Willie Eagleton,
)
individually and in his official
capacity; Associate Warden Roland )
McFadden, individually and in his )
official capacity; IGC Angie Graves, )
)
individually and in her official
)
capacity; Officer M. Thomas;
)
Unknown Nurse Manager; and
)
Unknown Medical Doctor,
)
)
Defendants.
)
George Cleveland, III,

Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-2444-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff George Cleveland, III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named Defendants on June 19, 2014. See Compl., ECF No.
1. The 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)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 21. In the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Defendant Graves as a party
defendant without service of process. See id. at 2, 6.

Moreover, the Magistrate Judge also

recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims related to his dissatisfaction with the available

1

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 mindful of its duty to liberally
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).

educational and vocational offerings while incarcerated. See id. at 6. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. See id. at 5–6.
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 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting 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 timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Graves is DISMISSED as a party
defendant without service of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s claims related to
his dissatisfaction with the available educational and vocational offerings while incarcerated are

2

DISMISSED. Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order, ECF No. 13, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
November 4, 2014

3