Williams v. Drew et al

Filing 40

ORDER ACCEPTING 26 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 5 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Glenn L Williams. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/16/2010. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Glenn L. Williams, # 15975-056, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Darlene Drew, Warden at FCI) Bennettsville, in her individual ) and official capacity; Delrae, ) Captain at FCI Bennettsville, ) in his individual capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 6:10-cv-2231-TLW-KFM

ORDER
On August 26, 2010, the plaintiff, Glenn L. Williams ("plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. (Doc. #1). On the same day, the plaintiff also filed a "Motion for order Preventing FCI-Bennetsville Warden D. Drew from subjecting Plaintiff to any Further Life-Threatening, Unsafe and Unhealthy Special Housing Unit Conditions . . . . ." (Doc. # 5). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2), D.S.C. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. # 26). On October 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 5) be denied. (Doc. # 26). Objections were due on November 8, 2010. The plaintiff filed a letter on October 29, 2010, stating he has no objections to

1

the Report. (Doc. # 30). This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 26). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 5) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge December 16, 2010 Florence, South Carolina

2