Temple v. Carter et al

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation, denying 20 Motion to Continue. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/28/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dennis Temple,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Chief Deputy Appellate Defense Counsel
Wanda H. Carter; Paralegal Assistant Sean
Glynn; Paralegal Assistant Mike LNU; Inmate
Grievance Coordinator, FNU Thomas;
Warden Joseph McFadden; Davidson &
Lindeman, P.A.; Ann Hallman, in their
individual an official capacity.
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 8:14-1366-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Dennis Temple, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that this action should be summarily dismissed for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts

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 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
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was notified of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff an extension of time to
file objections and set a new deadline of July 20, 2014. On July 12, 2014, instead of filing
objections to the Report, the plaintiff filed a motion to continue the case so that he could
“file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” However, there is no
pending motion for summary judgment in this case. In fact, the defendants have not even
been served with the complaint.
Plaintiff contends that he has good cause for delaying this case. He states that on
July 4, 2014, four inmates approached him with a knife and attempted to harm him. After
an altercation, the plaintiff was placed in “post-hearing detention” without legal supplies,
papers, and books.
As an initial matter, the court takes judicial notice of one of the plaintiff’s other
actions pending before it, Temple v. Oconee County, et al., C/A No. 6:13-144-JFA-KFM.
In that case, the court also granted the plaintiff an extension of time to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, with the objection deadline extended
to July 7, 2014. On July 7, 2014, the plaintiff mailed a 75-page handwritten objection
memorandum to the court for filing. The plaintiff’s memorandum was signed and dated July
5, 2014.

2

The court is curious as to how the plaintiff can file a 75-page brief in one of his cases
on July 5, 2014, while at the same time request a continuance in another of his cases because
he was involved in an altercation the day before on July 4, 2014, and placed in lockup
without his legal books, papers, or materials.
Nevertheless, the court finds no good cause to continue this action. As the plaintiff
has failed to file 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 properly opines that each of plaintiff’s claims based on federal
question alleging violations of the Constitution should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 28, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3