Edwards v. Georgetown County Detention Center

Filing 32

ORDER accepting 22 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as against Defendant Georgetown County Detention Center Medical, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/19/14. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie James Edwards, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Georgetown County Detention Center
Medical; Connie Reichard (Nurse),
Defendants.
__________________________________

) Civil Action No. 8:14-2333-BHH-JDA
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Willie James Edwards (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an investigation into his
allegations of negligence and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. (ECF. No.
1-2 and 1-4.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District
of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn
D. Austin for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 4, 2014. (ECF
No. 22.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process against the Georgetown
County Detention Center Medical. Id. Objections to the Report were due by August 21,
2014. Plaintiff has filed no Objections.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and
incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 22), by reference into this Order. It is therefore
ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process as against Defendant Georgetown County Detention
Center Medical, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial
proceedings.
s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 19, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina

2