Whetstone v. Thrash et al
ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and dismisses the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/12/2017.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony Brian Whetstone, #60921-019,
C/A No. 8:17-748-JFA
Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., in his
personal capacity and Jane Doe Thrash
husband and wife and their marital
Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., in his personal
capacity and Jane Doe Duffey husband and
wife and their marital community;
John A Horn, in his personal capacity and
Jane Doe Horn husband and wife and their
Anthony Brian Whetstone (“Whetstone”) filed a pro se complaint in this civil action
while incarcerated at FCI-Bennettsville in Bennettsville, South Carolina. Whetstone seeks to sue
two United States District Court Judges and an attorney with the United States Attorney’s Office
for actions relating to Whetstone’s prior criminal case. (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge for review.
Plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and “seeks redress
from a government entity or officer or employee of a government entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Thus, although Whetstone prepaid the full filing fee, this court is charged with screening
Plaintiff’s lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if, after being
liberally construed, (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should dismiss the action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 16). The Report sets forth in
detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates those
facts and standards without a recitation.
Whetstone was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on May 1, 2017. However, Whetstone failed to file any objections to the Report. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give an 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, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation, and dismisses the action without prejudice and without issuance and service
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 12, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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).
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?