Tyson v. Jordan et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 10 Report and Recommendations; Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/16/2010. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Charles Tyson, # 113360 aka Charles Kevin Bruce Tyson, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Jane Jordan; Henry McMaster; John W. ) McIntosh; Salley W. Elliott; Julie M. ) Thames; County of Florence, South ) Carolina, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

C/A No. 6:10-1528-MBS

ORDER

Plaintiff Charles Tyson is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He currently is incarcerated at the Lee Correctional Institution in Bishopville, South Carolina. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 14, 2010, alleging that Defendants have violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996. On July 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo

determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). The court has carefully reviewed the record and adopts the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina August 16, 2010.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2