Broadnax v. Myers et al
Filing
17
ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant dismissing case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/6/13.(hhil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Edward Walter Broadnax, III, #329602,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Director Myers; Alvin S. Glenn Detention )
Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 9:12-3415-CMC-BM
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 2, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for
filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on January 17, 2013.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
1
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Plaintiff contends that the case should continue as to Defendant Myers because Myers is
“responsible for the well doing of all inmates . . . .” Obj. at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff maintains that
the complaint indicates that his tooth was knocked out as a result of the incident, and that he seeks
payment for reconstructive dental work and “$100,000 dollars for relief.” Id. Plaintiff’s objections
fail to overcome the infirmity of his complaint; namely, that he cannot establish a cause of action
under § 1983 for supervisory liability based upon the facts alleged.
This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
February 6, 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?