Morrison v. Orangebury County Court House et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Plaintiffs Complaint in the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/22/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Taquann Rashea Morrison,
Plaintiff,
v.

Orangeburg County Court House, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________

) Civil Action No.: 9:13-1945-MGL
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Taquann Rashea Morrison (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B),
D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial handling
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report on August 27,
2013, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. # 10).
The Plaintiff filed an Objection, (Doc. #12), that does not meaningfully rebut the Magistrate Judge’s legal
grounds for recommending dismissal.
In conducting its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may
file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate
judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required
to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to
review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the

Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the
Objection. After careful review of the Report and Objection thereto, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the
Report. (Doc. # 10). Plaintiff’s Complaint in the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
November 22, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina

-2-