Shorter v. Kershaw Correctional Institution et al

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 . The court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. The Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED at to Kershaw and SCDC without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/26/2014. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Samuel Shorter, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Kershaw Correctional Institution, Officer
Russell, Michelle Ussery, South Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:14-1843-TMC-KFM
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., all pretrial
proceedings in this matter were referred to a magistrate judge. This matter is now before the
court on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the
court dismiss the complaint, without prejudice and without service of process, as to Kershaw
Correctional Institution (“Kershaw”) and South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”).
(ECF No. 16.) In lieu of filing objections to the Report, Plaintiff filed a document he titled
“Petition to Amend the Partys,” which essentially stated his agreement with the Report’s
recommendation. (ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, the court construes Plaintiff’s petition as a reply
in support of the Report and has docketed it as such.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
16) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED at to Kershaw and
SCDC without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 26, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina