Cullins v. Major et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 23 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. This case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 12/30/2008.(tmcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Christopher James Cullins, Jr., #3924, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SLRDC Director Simon Major, Jr.,; ) Assistant Director Major Darrell McGhaney,) and Food Service Director Sammy Rembert, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

C.A. No.: 8:08-00592-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. The [docket entry #23] Report and Recommendation was mailed to the plaintiff on December 8, 2008. The mail was returned to the court on December 15, 2008 [docket entry #24] marked "Mail Returned as 1

Undeliverable/NOT HERE/REFUSED BY INSTITUTION." Plaintiff has not provided the court with an updated address as required by the order of April 1, 2008, and, as a result, the court has no means of contacting him concerning his case. Plaintiff was warned and advised in the order to keep the Clerk apprised of his current address and that a failure to do so may result in a dismissal of the case. Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). Furthermore, 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). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hendricks' Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendants' [17] motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, and this action is dismissed with prejudice on the merits and also pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. BRYAN HARWELL United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina December 30, 2008

2