Robinson v. Sowell et al

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10 ), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's action, (ECF NO. 1 ), without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/14/2016. (mcot, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Corey Jawan Robinson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) U/M Ranata Sowell; A/W Kenneth Sharp; ) and Ms. Debt, Classification Officer, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-01876-JMC ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 10), filed on June 21, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed without prejudice for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report 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 Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight—the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (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). 1   The parties were advised of their right to file an objection to the Report “within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by June 27, 2016. (ECF No. 17 at 3.) Neither party filed an objection. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate 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 & Accident 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). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 10), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action, (ECF No. 1), without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge July 14, 2016 Columbia, South Carolina 2  

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?