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, )

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