Meggs v. State of South Carolina et al
Filing
18
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations. Order is dismissing complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 7/6/2011. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jimmy Donald Meggs, Jr. # 277400,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina; Cecilia
)
Reynolds, Warden of Kershaw C.I.; Linda )
Bradshaw, A/W of Turbeville C.I., et. al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 8:11-949-TLW-JDA
ORDER
Plaintiff, Jimmy D. Meggs, Jr., (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on May 5,
2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendations
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case
had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District
Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
(Doc. # 11). The plaintiff filed objections to the report. (Doc. # 14). In conducting this review,
the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case,
the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate
judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report. (Docs. # 11). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
July 6, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
2
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?