Martin v. Rush et al
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Discovery is hereby deemed moot. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 5/23/2013. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Norris Allen Martin,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
F. Emory Rush, investigator; Michael R.
)
Culler, Jr., Defense Attorney; Jack
)
Coleman, Detective; Walter M. Bailey,
)
Solicitor; Lisa W. Mizell, Clerk of
)
Court; L. Clark Whetstone, investigator;
)
Peggy D. Davis, Judge; J. Frank
)
Quatterbaum, Solicitor; Barry Mock,
)
SCDC Director Inmate Records; Ted
)
Shealy, SLED lab; James C. Williams,
)
Jr., Judge; Rosalyn Frierson, Director,
)
Court Admin.; Richard Murray, Judge;
)
Barbara Walters, Detective; Thomas W.
)
Behrman, M.D.; Robert N. Milling,
)
M.D.; Henry D. McMaster, Former
)
Attorney General; Costa Pleciones,
)
Judge; Christopher J. Murphy, Assistant
)
Solicitor; Boone Walters, Police Chief,
)
and E. Charles Grose, Jr., Defense
)
Attorney,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-00693-TLW
ORDER
The Plaintiff, Norris Allen Martin (“plaintiff”), an inmate incarcerated at Lee
Correctional Institution, brought this action, pro se and in forma pauperis, on March 15, 2013,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. #1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed on April 24, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to
whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #8). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the above-captioned case be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. The plaintiff filed objections to the Report on May 6,
2013. (Doc. #13).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the plaintiff’s objections. After careful consideration of the Report and objections thereto,
the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. #8).
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED
that the above-captioned case be and is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Discovery filed on May 16, 2013 is hereby deemed MOOT. (Doc. #15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
May 23, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
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?