Moorehead v. Story
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 . The Court adopts the Magistrate Judges Report (ECF No. 9) and dismisses this matter without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/7/2016. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jerry T. Moorehead,
a/k/a Jerry Moorehead,
Civil Action No. 6:16-3403-BHH
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jerry T. Moorehead’s pro se complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff raises various claims of
discrimination related to his incarceration. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On November 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Kevin F. McDonald issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s
claims and recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Attached to the
Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report
within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this case should be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 9) and
dismisses this matter without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 7, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?