Woods et al v. Fuller et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON 11 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that the seventeen (17) Co-Plaintiffs are DISMISSED without prejudice from this case and that Marcus A. Woods remain the sole Plaintiff in this case. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/14/13. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Marcus A. Woods, # 284415;
Bernard McFadden, # 199135;
Terrell Jackson, # 286790;
Tracey F. Carter, # 247387;
Orlander Wheeler, # 273024;
Cleveland Litthjohn, # 242403;
Malvin Marshall, # 305077;
Thomas Araheim, # 340913;
Alvin Johnson, # 072011;
Shawn Patterson, # 249829;
Demetrise Thomas, # 312331;
Curtis Richardson, # 269166;
James Morris, # 327611;
Eltajaris Carew, # 264671;
LeVardis Polk, # 329896;
Roy Blackwell, # 250427;
Joshua Cooper, # 314500;
David McIlwain, # 243585,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
Marcia Fuller, SCDC Dietician;
)
Mrs. Ball, First Name Unknown,
)
Kershaw Cafeteria Supervisor;
)
Michael L. Fair, Legislative Audit Counsel; )
SC District #6, Greenville County,
)
State Senate; Boyd H. Parr,
)
Director of Poultry Products and Inspection, )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 6:13-cv-01173-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 11], filed on May 20, 2013, recommending that the seventeen
(17) Co-Plaintiffs be dismissed without prejudice from this case and that Marcus A. Woods would
remain the sole Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiffs brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter
which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiffs were advised of their right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 11 at 5].
However, Plaintiffs filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal
from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report, and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the
record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 11]. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that the seventeen (17) CoPlaintiffs are DISMISSED without prejudice from this case and that Marcus A. Woods remain the
sole Plaintiff in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 14, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina