Smith v. Riffle et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court concurs in the Report and Recommendation 13 and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuan ce and service of process as to Defendants Southeast Regional Director, Kane, and the United States Department of Justice only. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/15/2017. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jerry Smith, #71109-004,
) C/A No. 4:17-2499-MBS-TER
ORDER AND OPINION
R. Goodman, Riffle, Dr. Hoey, L. Cross,
Wright, Gio Ramirez, Thomas Kane,
Southeast Regional Director, and U.S.
Department of Justice,
Plaintiff Jerry Smith is a federal inmate currently housed at FCI-Williamsburg in Salters,
South Carolina. On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights in various respects. See Bevins v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Fed. Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1996, and relevant precedents. On October 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation in which he determined that (1) Defendants Southeast
Regional Director and Kane should be summarily dismissed because there are not facts to show
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations; and (2) the United States Department
of Justice should be summarily dismissed because there can be no Bivens claim against a federal
agency itself. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff had stated claims against the remaining
Defendants. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Southeast
Regional Director, Kane, and the United States Department of Justice only. The case is recommitted
to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
November 15, 2017
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?