Williams v. Brockenberry et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ACCEPTS and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 16 ), by reference into this Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudic e and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants South Carolina Department of Corrections, Belinda E. Timmons, John Carter, and Kenneth Newsome, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/9/2016. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ruby Brockenberry; South Carolina
Department of Corrections; Belinda E.
Timmons; John Carter; Kenneth
Newsome; Gary Leamon; Charles
Reeves; C. West; Stacy Carter, and
) Civil Action No. 5:16-3192-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Alfrigh Williams(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF. No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. The
matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
issued by the Magistrate Judge on November 18, 2016. (ECF No. 16.) In her Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Complaint be partially dismissed in this case
without prejudice as to Defendants South Carolina Department of Corrections, Belinda E.
Timmons, John Carter, and Kenneth Newsome. Id. Objections to the Report were due by
December 5, 2016. Plaintiff has filed no Objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and
incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 16), by reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process as to Defendants South Carolina Department of
Corrections, Belinda E. Timmons, John Carter, and Kenneth Newsome, and that the matter
be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 9, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?