Blakely v. Greenville County, Major of et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation 13 is incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 12/21/2012. (mcot, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James G. Blakely,
a/k/a James Gatewood Blakely,
a/k/a Jimmy G. Blakely,

) Civil Action No.: 6:12-2587-MGL
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
ORDER AND OPINION
)
vs.
)
)
Mayor of Greenville County;
)
Solicitor of Greenville County;
)
Detective Bellow, GPD;
)
Detective Donahue, GPD;
)
County of Greenville, S.C.,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
Plaintiff James G. Blakely ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner at the McCormick

Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). On
September 7, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against the Mayor of
Greenville County, the Solicitor of Greenville County, Detectives Bellow and Donahue of
the Grenville Police Department, and the County of Greenville, South Carolina
("Defendants") raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. On September 25, 2012,
Magistrate Judge West issued a Report and Recommendation recommending inter alia
that the court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and service of process as
Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants. Upon
review of the complaint in accordance with the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are barred or the relief sought is otherwise

unavailable to him. (ECF No. 13 at 3-4, 6.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 13 at 7.) Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
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 and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
December 21, 2012
Spartanburg, South Carolina