Knight v. Picken Co. Det. Cnt
Filing
16
ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/18/22. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Pickens County Detention Center and )
)
Ms. Makayla, Head Nurse,
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________)
Gary Rowland Knight,
Civil Action No. 8:22-cv-3173-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff Gary Rowland Knight, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings.
On September 20, 2022, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Plaintiff twenty-one (21)
days in which to bring the case into proper form. (ECF No. 8). The order also advised Plaintiff
of his duty to keep the court informed as to his current address. Id. at 3. The magistrate judge
warned Plaintiff that if he failed either to bring the case into proper form within the time permitted
or to keep the court informed of his current address, his case may be subject to dismissal. Id. at 2,
3. The magistrate judge simultaneously entered an order (the “Amendment Order”) informing
Plaintiff that his Complaint is subject to summary dismissal, identifying the deficiencies in the
Complaint, and granting Plaintiff twenty-one (21) in which to file an amended complaint curing
the deficiencies identified therein. (ECF No. 10). The proper form order and Amendment Order
were both mailed on September 20, 2022, to Plaintiff at the address he provided to the court, (ECF
No. 11), and neither has not been returned to the court has undeliverable. Accordingly, Plaintiff
is presumed to have received the proper form order and the Amendment Order. Nevertheless,
1
Plaintiff has not filed any of the documents necessary to bring the case into proper form, nor has
he submitted an amended complaint or any response to the magistrate judge’s Amendment Order.
On October 18, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending the court dismiss this action for failure to state a claim against
Defendants. (ECF No. 14). The Report also notified Plaintiff of his right to file objections thereto.
Id. at 12. The Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided the court, (ECF No. 15),
and has not been returned as undeliverable. Therefore, Plaintiff is presumed to have received the
Report. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the Report and the time in which to
do so has long expired.
The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility
for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,
774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)).
Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to
which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed.
App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982)). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation
made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is
not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers
Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–
200 (4th Cir. 1983)).
2
Thus, having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the court
agrees with and wholly ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the
Report (ECF No. 14), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this case is
DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
November 18, 2022
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
1
This action constitutes a “strike” pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104–
134, 110 Stat. 1321–71 (1996), based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (“In no event
shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”); see
also Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1724–25, 207 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2020) (noting “[a] strike-call
under Section 1915(g) ... hinges exclusively on the basis for the dismissal, regardless of the decision's prejudicial
effect[,]” such that the three-strike rule applies equally to dismissals without prejudice).
3
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?