Plummer v. Allendale Correctional Institution et al

Filing 74

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 72 Report and Recommendations, that defendants' 61 Motion for Summary Judgment, is Granted and the complaint is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 1/16/09. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Andrew Plummer, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Allendale Correctional Institution Officials ) and Mailroom Employees, Jon Ozmint, ) Warden George T. Hagan, DHO Shirley ) Singletary, Cpt. Joseph DeLoach, Officer ) Corey Johnson, IGC Ken Long, Linda ) Martin, NFN Hutchinson, Hellen P. ) Freeman, and Ann Hallman, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:08-433-TLW-BHH

ORDER
Plaintiff, Andrew Plummer ("plaintiff"), filed this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 11, 2008. (Doc. #1). Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 25, 2008. (Doc. #61). The plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on October 6, 2008. (Doc. #69). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #72). On December 11, 2008 the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. #72). The plaintiff filed no objections to the report. Objections

1

were due on December 29, 2008. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #72). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge January 16, 2009 Florence, South Carolina

2