Al-Mujahidin v. Morton et al

Filing 26

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and DISMISSING this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants Morton, Talbert and Holmes. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 5/28/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Muhammad Al Mujahidin, #103968,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Penny Morton; P. Talbert; Leroy Cartledge; F.
Mursier; Chaplin Barker; McCI; Ms. Holmes,
NFN, all in their indvid capacities, and SCDC,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 9:13-456-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Muhammad Al Mujahidin (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently housed at
the McCormick Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections in
McCormick, South Carolina, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. On May 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge
Marchant issued a Report and Recommendation recommending inter alia that the court dismiss
Defendants Penny Morton, P. Talbert, and Ms. Holmes from this case without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 18.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 18 at 6.) Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 20, 2013.

In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this action
is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants
Morton, Talbert and Holmes. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
May 28, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina

-2-