Ward v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #24). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 7/8/10. (ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION April Ward, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Steven Ray Ward and on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries April Ward, Stephanie Ward, Stacy Westmoreland, Samantha Ward, and Shelby Ward, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) South Carolina Department of Corrections, ) Jon Ozmint, George Hagan, Bernard ) Mckie, John Jane Does Nos 1 through 10 ) and, Dr. John Jane Does Nos 1 through 10, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 9:09-0020-TLW-BM

ORDER
This case was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County, South Carolina, on January 5, 2009. (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), DSC. On May 4, 2010, counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw as attorney. (Doc. #20). The Magistrate Judge previously assigned to this case granted the motion to withdraw on May 7, 2010, and notified the pro se plaintiff that she had twenty days to have new counsel file an appearance on her behalf. (Doc. #21). 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. #24). On June 1, 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. #24). The plaintiff filed no objections to the report. Objections were due on June 18, 2010. 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, 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. #24). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge July 8, 2010 Florence, South Carolina

2