Pearson v. Stevenson et al
Filing
24
ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is ORDERED that Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections is DISMISSED, without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/22/2014.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Cody J. Pearson, a/k/a Cody Javar
Pearson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Capt. J. Stevenson; Lt. Tompkins;
Sgt. Smith; and South Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Individually and Official Capacity,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 9:14-cv-0454-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff Cody J. Pearson, a/k/a Cody Javar Pearson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding
pro se, filed this action on February 21, 2014, alleging violations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) 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.
See R & R, ECF No. 18. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court dismiss Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections without prejudice and
without service of process. Id. at 5.
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).
No 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 recommendations. 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 Defendant South Carolina Department of
Corrections is DISMISSED, without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 22, 2014
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?