Singley v. Cartledge et al

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13 ), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF Nos. 1 & 1 -2]) without prejudice and without issuance and service of process and DENIES Plaintiff's request for an injunction.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 05/30/2017. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Ferris Geiger Singley, #211565, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Larry Cartledge, ) B.R.C.I. Warden, ) Greg Washington, ) B.R.C.I. Assoc. Warden of Operations, ) The Current B.R.C.I. Major (Name ) Unknown to Petitioner), ) Minnie McCon, ) B.R.C.I. Classification Supervisor, ) Ms. Jones, ) B.R.C.I. Mental Health Supervisor, ) Lt. Lisa Young, ) B.R.C.I. Lock-Up Unit Supervisor, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-02723-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on August 31, 2016 (ECF No. 13), recommending that Plaintiff Ferris Geiger Singley’s pro se § 1983 action and request for injunction be summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to prove that an injunction would be a proper basis of relief. This review considers Plaintiff’s Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, filed September 22, 2016. (ECF No. 18.) The Magistrate Judge’s Report 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, which 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 1   (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff was advised of the right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 13.) In his Response to the Report, Plaintiff agreed with it and indicated that he would pursue administrative remedies before filing a new complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Because Plaintiff did not object to the Report, the court does not need to conduct a de novo review and 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, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law, and there is no clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF Nos. 1 & 1-2) without prejudice and without issuance and service of process and DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge May 30, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina   2  

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?