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, )

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