Robinson v. Byrne

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 14]. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that the non-plausible causes of action for conspiracy, denial of access to court, grievance obstruction, and medical indifference for any alleged problem except sarcoidosis, glaucoma, and stomach problems with weight loss are DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 01/23/2014. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Corey Jawan Robinson, # 294233,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Dr. Thomas E. Byrne,
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-02899-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §
1983.

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 14], filed on January 2, 2014, recommending that the court
dismiss the non-plausible causes of action for conspiracy, denial of access to court, grievance
obstruction, and medical indifference for any alleged problem except sarcoidosis, glaucoma, and
stomach problems with weight loss. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal
standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 14 at 9].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate
1

Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the
Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based
upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright
v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the
record in this case. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 14]. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that the non-plausible causes
of action for conspiracy, denial of access to court, grievance obstruction, and medical indifference
for any alleged problem except sarcoidosis, glaucoma, and stomach problems with weight loss are
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

January23, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina

2