Legette v. McBee et al

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 9 ) and dismisses this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/04/2017. (dsto)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Matthew Leo Legette, #344367,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Cpl. McBee,
)
Lt. Larry,
)
Warden Dean,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:17-2896-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Matthew Leo Legette’s pro se
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was
assaulted by other inmates on May 27, 2016, after Defendant McBee left his door
unlocked, and that he suffered serious injuries as a result.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
determinations. On November 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III issued
a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that
the Court summarily dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process because Defendants, who are sued in their official capacities only, are entitled
to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff
of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with
a copy. To date, no objections have been filed, and Plaintiff has not attempted to file an
amended complaint.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this case is subject to summary dismissal.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 9) and
dismisses this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 4, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2