Hicklin v. Turbeville Correctional Institution et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report 22 and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT SERVICE OF PROCESS as to Defendants Turbeville Correctional Institution, Sharp, Shavella and Allison. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 05/26/2016. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BRANDON DIQUAN HICKLIN,
INSTITUTE, SGT. EMANUEL JUAN
CARSTELLO, WARDEN SHARP,
and SGT. ALLISON,
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-2905-MGL-TER
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT SERVICE OF
PROCESS AS TO DEFENDANTS TURBEVILLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
SHARP, SHAVELLA AND ALLISON
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting to the Court that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice and without service
of process as to Defendants Turbeville Correctional Institution, Sharp, Shavella and Allison. The
Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of
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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 30, 2015, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections. “[I]n 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court that Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT
SERVICE OF PROCESS as to Defendants Turbeville Correctional Institution, Sharp, Shavella and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 26th day of May, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?