Wooden v. Dunlap et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepts 14 Report and Recommendation dismissing Defendant Stonebreaker from this case without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/11/2018. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Damien A. Wooden,
David W. Dunlap, Warden,
Donnie Stonebreaker, Asst. Warden,
John Lane, Correctional Officer,
Lamanda Hooper, Correctional Officer,
Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-03549-JMC
This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 14), filed on December 13, 2016, recommending that the
court dismiss Defendant Donnie Stonebreaker (“Stonebreaker”) from this action without issuance
and service of process for failure to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to
make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 14 at 5.)
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme
Court has authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule
conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate's
recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on
which further review is desired.’”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts related to
Stonebreaker’s personal involvement with the incident where Plaintiff was allegedly injured,
therefore Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See
ECF No. 14 at 4.) For this reason, the court ACCEPTS the Report dismissing Defendant
Stonebreaker from this case without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
January 11, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?