Fleming v. Greenville County et al

Filing 30

ORDER Accepting 14 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that the 1 complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service process as against Defendants Greenville County, SC; the Greenville County Sheriff's Office; the City of Greenville; and the Greenville County Detention Center. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/24/14. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony Ray Fleming,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Greenville County, SC;
Greenville County Sheriff’s Office;
City of Greenville, South Carolina;
Officer J Gault, Bagde #80;
Greenville County Detention Center,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

) Civil Action No. 6:13-3375-MGL-JDA
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Anthony Ray Fleming, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking punitive damages and injunctive
relief. (ECF. No. 1).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pretrial
handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 27, 2013. (ECF No. 14). In her Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process as against the following Defendants: Greenville County, SC, the Greenville
County Sheriff’s Office, the City of Greenville, and the Greenville County Detention Center. Id.
Objections to the Report were due by January 13, 2014. Plaintiff has filed no Objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo

determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge 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 recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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 of the Magistrate
Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and incorporates the
Report, (ECF No. 14), by reference into this Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint
in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service process as against
Defendants Greenville County, SC, the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office, the City of Greenville,
and the Greenville County Detention Center and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge
for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
January 24, 2014
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2