Hunt v. Jacobs et al

Filing 33

ORDER adopting 28 Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES the case pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/26/16. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Benjamin J. Hunt,
Plaintiff,

v.
Dr. T. Jacobs and Dr. Berry Weissglass,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

No: 8: 15-cv-04480-RMG
ORDER

-------------------------)
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 28). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
ADOPTS the R & R.

Plaintiff brought this pro se action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
seeking various forms of injunctive relief relating to his medical care at the Charleston County
Detention Center. (See Dkt. No.1 at 5). The Magistrate Judge issued orders directing Plaintiff
to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address. (Dkt. No.9, 14). These orders were
mailed to Plaintiff with no issues. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 15). But subsequent mailings to Plaintiff
regarding Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Magistrate Judge's R & R were
returned undeliverable. (Dkt. Nos. 24, 30, 31). The final piece of returned mail indicated that
Plaintiff was "OOJ," or Out Of Jail. (Dkt. No. 31). Unsurprisingly, Plaintiff has not filed any
objections to the R & R.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making

a de novo detennination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(I). Where the plaintiff
fails to file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for
clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court, having reviewed the record and R & R and finding no clear error, agrees with
and adopts the R & R as the order of the Court. The Court therefore DISMISSES the case
pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED

United States District Court Judge
May ~,2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2