Boykins v. Orangeburg County Jail et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 5/21/2012. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dyzshon R.A. Boykins,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Orangeburg County Jail; Nurse Webber;
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 5:12-114-JFA-KDW

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff brings this civil action pro se, and in forma pauperis pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff contends that after a spider bit his cheek, that he received
a lack of medical attention.

He also raises various claims regarding conditions of

confinement related to prison food, recreation, sanitation, and inmate treatment by
correctional officers.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge suggests the defendant Orangeburg County Jail
is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983 and that the claims against the remaining
named defendants are conclusory and insufficient to state a § 1983 claim. The Report sets

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 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).

1

forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
On March 27, 2012, the plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and
Recommendation, which was filed on that same day, and advised of his right to file
objections to the Report. The plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and the time
within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 21, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2