Ferrell v. Eagleton et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22 ) and partially dismisses the complaint without prejudice. Specifically, Plaintiff's request to be housed at a differen t institution is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Additionally, Defendants Eagleton, Sellars, McCall, and Stirling are dismissed without issuance and service of process. The remaining claims against defendant Martin remain pending before the Magistrate Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr. on 06/30/2017. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jamarriel Ferrell, #344628,
C/A No. 4:17-831-JFA-TER
Warden Willie Eagleton,
A.W. Annie Sellars,
Deputy Director Michael McCall,
Director Bryan Stirling
Lt. Gary Martin,
Jamarriel Ferrell (“Ferrell”), proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro se complaint in
this civil action while incarcerated in a South Carolina state prison. Ferrell seeks to sue several
members of the correctional facility in their official capacity and one correctional officer
personally. (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
Because the complaint was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, this court is
charged with screening Plaintiff’s lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the
complaint if, after being liberally construed, it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should dismiss the action without
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this
court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to four of the five named defendants.
(ECF No. 22). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Ferrell was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on May 16, 2017. However, Ferrell failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 22) and partially dismisses the complaint without prejudice.
Specifically, Plaintiff’s request to be housed at a different institution is dismissed for failure to
state a claim. Additionally, Defendants Eagleton, Sellars, McCall, and Stirling are dismissed
without issuance and service of process. The remaining claims against defendant Martin remain
pending before the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 30, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation 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
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
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?