Temple v. Singleton et al

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Clerk shall designate this action as a strike.Plaintiffs motion for recusal 18 is denied as well. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/27/2015. (gpre, )

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

Dennis Temple,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Oconee County; Sheriff James Singleton;
Captain Greg Reed;
Sergeant Scott Arnold;
Sergeant Jerry Moss;
Solicitor Chrissy T. Adams;
Assistant Solicitor Lindsey S. Simmons;
Anderson-Independent Newspaper, Inc.;
Reporter John Doe a/k/a Don Kausler;
Daily Journal Newspaper, Inc.;
Reporter Andrew Moore;
Reporter Norman Cannon;
Greenville Newspaper, Inc.;
Publisher Steven R. Brandt;
Editor John Pittman;
Fox Carolina News, Inc.;
Reporter Cody Alcorn;
Reporter Diana Watson;
News 13, Inc.;
Reporter Darcel Grimes;
Reporter Tammy Watford;
News 7, Inc.;
Reporter Gordon Dill;
Reporter Tom Crabtree;
News 4, Inc.;
Reporter Carol Goldsmith;
Reporter Nigel Robertson;
in their individual capacity,
Defendants.
____________________________________

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

C/A No. 8:14-4832-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Dennis Temple, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. The plaintiff is a state prisoner
incarcerated at the Perry Correctional Institution in South Carolina. He is serving a 100-year
sentence upon his conviction for kidnaping and sexually assaulting a college student, and
grand larceny. Plaintiff’s claims that the defendants were personally involved in the
violation of his rights; that they conspired together to falsely identify him as the attacker; the
policies and customs in place violated his constitutional rights; and that the defendants
committed libel, slander, and defamation.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance of service of process. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
action be deemed a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Report sets forth in detail
the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without
a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and he has done
so in a 10-page objection memorandum. In each and every objection, the plaintiff contends
that the Magistrate Judge has “mischaracterized” his claims. Plaintiff then goes on to

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).
2

reassert and reargue the basic allegations in the underlying complaint. Although lengthy and
prolix, the plaintiff’s objection memorandum does not address in any meaningful way the
legal analysis provided by the Magistrate Judge who diligently reviewed this case. As such,
the objections are overruled. 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, this court adopts and incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Clerk shall designate this action
as a “strike.”
Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 18) is denied as well.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 27, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3