Irvin Jefferson Wilson v. Tina et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Additionally, in light of the foregoing, and consistent with the Report's recommendation, the Court expressly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims presented. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 3/25/2016.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Irvin Jefferson Wilson, #0811,

) Civil Action No. 6:15-4809-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Tina, Nurse, House of Raeford, Columbia
)
Farms, Greenville, SC; Luke Brewer,
)
Supervisor, House of Raeford, Columbia Farms, )
Greenville, SC,
)
Defendants.
_______________________________________
Plaintiff Irvin Jefferson Wilson, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action
construed as pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
et seq., and federal constitutional protections. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for review pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.
On March 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, (“the
Report”), (ECF No. 12), recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. On March 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the
Report, (ECF No. 14), and the matter is now ripe for decision.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record,
including, in particular, the Report and Plaintiff’s Objection. The Court concludes that none of
Plaintiff’s objections supply facts or argument which meaningfully counter the reasoned conclusion
of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege any actionable federal claims.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 12), overruling Plaintiff’s
Objection. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff’s Complaint is thereby DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. Additionally, in light of the foregoing, and consistent with
the Report’s recommendation, the Court expressly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over any potential state law claims presented.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary Geiger Lewis
United States District Judge
March 25, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

-2-