Temple v. Morrison et al

Filing 79

ORDER adopting 77 Report and Recommendation. The defendants' 58 Motion for summary judgment is granted; and plaintiff's 74 Motion to dismiss is granted as well. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/30/14. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dennis Temple, #274802,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Warden Joseph McFadden; Associate Warden
Fred Thompson; Associate Warden James
Blackwell; Chaplain James Cuttino; Muslim
Chaplin Tami Abdul Mutakabbir, in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
____________________________________

) C/A No. 8:13-3426-JFA-JDA
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The pro se plaintiff, Dennis Temple, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) raising various
allegations that his constitutional and statutory rights have been violated in relation to his
religious worship services.
The Magistrate Judge1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she
suggests that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The 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 of those
portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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).
Before the Magistrate Judge, an order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and
possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff did not respond, but instead filed a motion to dismiss the action.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court find the Report proper and adopts and incorporates the Report
herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58) is granted;
and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 74) is granted as well.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

September 30, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2