Tate v. Mauney et al

Filing 36

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; Plaintiffs access to the courts claim is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Defendant Sanders is DISMISSED as a party to this action. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/23/2015.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Ricky Dean Tate, #261418,
C/A No. 9:15-cv-1858-TLW-BM
Plaintiff,
v.
A/W Florence Mauney, Asst. Warden; OFS
A. Sanders, A-2 Shift; and Ofc. Livingston,
A-2 Shift,

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff Ricky Dean Tate, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts two claims;
one based on the alleged denial of his access to the courts, and another based on an alleged incident
involving excessive force. (Id.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims based on several
grounds. (ECF No. 14.). Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition, and Defendants replied to that brief.
(ECF Nos. 19 & 22.)
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(R&R) filed by Magistrate Judge Marchant (ECF No. 32), to whom this case was assigned pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. In the R&R,
the Magistrate Judge addresses Defendants’ motion to dismiss and recommends that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim without prejudice, and dismiss Defendant Sanders as
a party. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim survives
at this point in the litigation. Plaintiff filed a response stating that he did not object to the R&R.
(ECF No. 34.)
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the R&R, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R in this case (ECF No. 34) and, noting that Plaintiff
does not object, the R&R is hereby ACCEPTED. Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge in the R&R, Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim is DISMISSED without
prejudice, and Defendant Sanders is DISMISSED as a party to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 23, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina