Adams v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 94

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 72 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant SCDC's Motion to Dismiss 41 is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 12/12/2012. (mcot, ) Modified on 12/14/2012 to correct link to associated event(mcot, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Zaid Adams,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections, Sgt. James Heyward, and
)
Ofc. Fernandez Richberg,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 5:12-cv-00479-GRA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge
Kaymani D. West’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on October 15, 2012.
Plaintiff Zaid Adams (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on February 15, 2012, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 On July 20, 2012, Defendant South Carolina Department of
Corrections (“Defendant SCDC”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on August 15, 2012. Under established local
procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge West made a careful review of the pro
se complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Magistrate Judge West recommends that
this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant SCDC. The Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

1

Prisoner petitions are deemed filed at the time that they are delivered to prison authorities for
mailing to the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings
liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged
with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of
a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains
with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged
with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). In this case, Plaintiff
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 29, 2012.
In his objections, Plaintiff states that (1) he amended the Complaint to dismiss
Defendant SCDC; thus, the Eleventh Amendment is not implicated in this case; (2)
Defendant SCDC is no longer a defendant; therefore, he is suing Defendants Heyward and
Richberg only in their individual capacities; and (3) “plaintiff is now sueing [sic] the
defendants only in their individual capacity, and no longer in their official capacity.” ECF
No. 79. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that his claims should not be dismissed, because he
has amended his Complaint to remove Defendant SCDC. Thus, Plaintiff appears to actually
agree with the Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge West does not recommend
Page 2 of 3

that the entire suit be dismissed; rather, she recommends only that Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant SCDC be dismissed. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Heyward and
Richberg will not be dismissed if this Court adopts the instant Report and Recommendation
and grants Defendant SCDC’s Motion.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant SCDC’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 12 , 2012
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3