Washington v. Cartledge et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and dismissing defendant McCormick Correctional Institution without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 5/29/2012.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

William Washington,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Leroy Cartledge, Warden; H. Glickwell, DHO; )
L. Holmes, IGC; The McCormick
)
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 9:12-1127-JFA-BM

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff brings this civil action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, raising claims regarding prison disciplinary proceedings and retaliation.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that defendant McCormick Correctional Institution should
be dismissed because it is not a proper party defendant in this § 1983 action. Specifically,
McCormick Correctional Institution is not a person amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The Magistrate Judge has authorized service of process on three of the individual
defendants. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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).

1

On May 8, 2012, the plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and
Recommendation, which was filed on that same day, and advised of his right to file
objections to the Report. The plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which
to do so has now expired. Additionally, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
27, 2012. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, defendant “McCormick Correctional Institution” is dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 29, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2