Henley v. Zais et al

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/30/14. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William Henley,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Mick Zais, SCDE Superintendant; Randy
Reagan, PUSD Superintendant; Jacqueline
Venning, Special Program Coordinator; Bryan P.
Stirling, SCDC Director,
Defendants.
______________________________________

) C/A No. 8:14-006-JFA-JDA
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The pro se plaintiff, William Henley, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this breach of contract action relating to an alleged contract entered
into with the defendants where they agreed to permit plaintiff to complete his G.E.D. and
obtain a vocational skill. Plaintiff also contends that he was denied access to an educational
program. Plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to be filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss this action. The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
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

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on March 28, 2014. However, the
plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. 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).
The Magistrate Judge correctly opines that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted because there is no constitutional right to participate in a
prison’s vocational, educational, or rehabilitative programs. The Magistrate Judge further
recommends that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state
law breach of contract claim.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper and
incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

April 30, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2