Shaw v. Byars et al
Filing
36
ORDER adopting 34 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing complaint without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/25/13.(hhil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
LeRoy Shaw, # 301480,
Plaintiff,
v.
William R. Byars, Director; Leroy
Cartledge, Warden; and Mrs.
Leggins, Programs and Services;
individually and in his official
capacity,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 9:12-cv-01349-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff LeRoy Shaw, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The above-captioned Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,
and Plaintiff responded.
The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation’ ”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) be GRANTED
and that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 25, 2013
2
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?