Hammonds v. Bessent

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 10 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 15587. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
KEITH HAMMONDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JENNIFER BESSENT, Evans
)
Correctional Institution Officer,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 8:15-cv-00587-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Keith Hammonds, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). This matter is now before the Court for review of
the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge
Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this
Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
(ECF No. 10). On March 3, 2015, the Report was mailed to the Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11).
However, the Report was returned, marked undeliverable due to the expiration of Plaintiff’s
sentence, on March 17, 2015.1 (ECF No. 12). Objections were due by March 20, 2015. More
than three months have now expired since the Report was mailed, and no objections were filed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence

1

By order dated March 3, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered to keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing of any change in
address. (ECF No. 8). However, this order was returned, along with the Report, as undeliverable. (ECF No. 12).

of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 Court has carefully reviewed the record and the Report and concludes that the
Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is
ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
June 10, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina