James v. Cotter et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. #1). Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/12/2014.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
MICHAEL D. JAMES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DANIEL COTTER, Perry CI Officer;
)
COACH ROBERTSON, Perry Basketball )
Coach; DHO GLIDEWELL, Disciplinary )
Hearing Officer; LARRY CARTLEDGE, )
Perry CI Warden; and ANN HALLMAN, )
Chief Grievance Coordinator,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 9:14-cv-03582-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Michael D. James, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 9, 2014. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that this Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. (Doc. #14). Plaintiff filed a reply to the Report on December 5, 2014,
acknowledging that he “should have []waited until after [his] disciplinary conviction have been
[sic] overturned by the Administrative Law Judge” before filing this action. (Doc. #16). He
states that it is “only wise for [him] to agree with the recommendation,” and he asks the Court to
dismiss his § 1983 claim without prejudice. Id.

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections
to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a
case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After carefully reviewing the Report in accordance with this standard, and in light of
Plaintiff’s reply to the Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is
ACCEPTED. (Doc. #14). This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. (Doc. #1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 12, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina