Williams v. Drew et al
Filing
76
ORDER ACCEPTING 71 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 44 Motion to Dismiss filed by Darlene Drew, Delrae. The plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/27/2011. (mbro, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Glenn L. Williams,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Darlene Drew, Warden at FCI
)
Bennettsville, and DelRae, Captain
)
at FCI Bennettsville,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 6:10-cv-2231-TLW-KFM
ORDER
The plaintiff, Glenn L. Williams (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on August 26,
2010. (Doc. # 1). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 8, 2010, amending his
sixth cause of action for retaliation/discrimination. (Doc. # 32). On December 21, 2010, the
plaintiff filed a motion to amend/correct the amended complaint. (Doc. # 49). On May 13, 2011,
this Court signed an Order granting the motion to amend/correct as to the dismissal of defendant
DelRae and denying it as to the addition of Officer Hayes as a defendant. (Doc. # 67). On December
17, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 44). On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed
a response to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 65).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2), DSC. (Doc. # 71). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District
1
Court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 44) and dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. # 71). The plaintiff filed
objections to the Report. (Doc. # 74). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following
standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the
Report. (Doc. # 71). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the defendants’
motion to dismiss (Doc. # 44) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
September 27, 2011
Florence, 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?