Dinkins v. Graves

Filing 25

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 9/23/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Sgt. M. Dailey; Major West; Mrs. H. Sellers;
)
and Angela Graves, All sued in their individual
)
capacity,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________ )

Timothy Dinkins,

Civil Action No.: 9:13-1320-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Timothy Dinkins (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, is currently incarcerated at the Evans Correctional Institution of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that
his constitutional rights have been violated.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C ., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. The Magistrate
Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A and the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. On August 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he noted that the complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
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 curt 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. 23 at 7.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on September
6, 2013. In the absence objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 and advisory
committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are subject to summary dismissal. Here, because
no 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 adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Spartanburg, South Carolina
September 23, 2013

-2-