Morton v. Greenwood City Police Dept et al

Filing 20

ORDER Accepting 11 Report and Recommendation that this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/7/13. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dana Lamont Morton,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Greenwood City Police Dept.; Chief Gerald
)
Brooks; Chris Gray; SC Dept. of Probation
)
Parole Pardon; Index Journal Newspaper,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 8:13-1243-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

Pro Se Plaintiff Dana Lamont Morton (“Plaintiff”), a detainee at Greenwood County
Detention Center, filed this action on May 8, 2013, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the court for review of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) D.S.C. On May 20, 2013,
Magistrate Judge Austin issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and service of process.
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id.
On May 20, 2013, the Clerk’s Office mailed Plaintiff an order advising Plaintiff of his
responsibility to notify the court in writing if his address changed and warning that his case could

be dismissed for failing to comply with the court’s order. (ECF No. 9.) The Clerk’s Office also
mailed Plaintiff the Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Austin. (ECF No. 11.) On June
3, 2013, the envelope addressed to Plaintiff containing the Report and Recommendation and the
order was returned to the Clerk’s Office marked “Released,” and “Return to Sender.” (ECF No. 13.)
On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff called the Clerk’s Office and stated that he had been released from
detention and gave his new mailing address.
Based on the verbal communication from Plaintiff, another copy of the May 20, 2013 order
as well as a copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff on July 2, 2013.
Plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 11 at 6.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 16,
2013. “[I]n 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) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 and advisory committee’s note). Accordingly, the court
accepts the Report and Recommendation having found no clear error.
After careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation,
this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
August 7, 2013

-2-