Payne v. Edwards et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 26 is denied, the Defendants' motion to dismiss 21 is granted, and that this is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/5/08. (rpol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Thurman D. Payne, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) J. Edwards, M. Christian, Jerry Comstock, ) Marty C. Anderson, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 9:07-3900-TLW-BM

ORDER
On December 5, 2007, the plaintiff, Thurman D. Payne ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. #1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #37). On September 12, 2008 the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that "Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies." (Doc. #37). The Plaintiff filed no objections to the report. Objections were due on September 29, 2008. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, 1

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence 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 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #37). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge December 5, 2008 Florence, South Carolina

2