Bennekin v. Polson et al

Filing 43

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ACCEPTS and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 27 ), by reference into this Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as against the defendant Stone, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 4/8/2015. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Terance Terill Bennekin,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Kenneth Bryan Polson;
Niyoka Monique Stone,
Defendants.
________________________________

) Civil Action No.4:14-4128-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Terance Terill Bennekin (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and punitive damages. (ECF. No. 1.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D.
West for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 5, 2015. (ECF
No. 27.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process against the defendant Stone.
Id. Objections to the Report were due by February 23, 2015. The plaintiff has filed no
Objections.
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. 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and
incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 27), by reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process as against the defendant Stone, and that the matter be
returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
April 8, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2