Roach v. Timmons et al

Filing 44

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. (ECF No. 28 .) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/14/2017. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

Christopher Roach,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Correctional Officer Timmons,
)
in his official capacity as a correctional
)
officer, Bernard McKie,
)
in his official capacity as a warden,
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections; )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Case No. 4:16-00948-JMC

ORDER

Pro Se Plaintiff Christopher Roach, an inmate at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center in
Columbia, South Carolina, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 23, 2016,
alleging a claim of excessive force against Correctional Officer Timmons and Warden Bernard
McKie (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts Defendants’ use of excessive force violated
his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. (ECF No. 1 at 3-7.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on August 22, 2016, ruled that
Plaintiff failed to respond to a court’s order notifying him to serve Defendants a copy of his
summons and complaint. (ECF No. 28 at 3.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail
the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

1

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. 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 objections are made, and the court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 28 at 5.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In
the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
(ECF No. 28.) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1) is dismissed
without prejudice.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
April 14, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3