Garrett v. Marten et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Plaintiffs claims are hereby DISMISSED Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 5/2/2017.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Clinton Lee Garrett,
C/A No. 9:15-cv-03623-TLW
Dr. Marten, Tracy Krien, Marshall Stowers,
Ronald Hollister, and John Vandermosen,
Plaintiff Clinton Lee Garrett, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The
matter now comes before this Court for review of a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by
Magistrate Judge Marchant, ECF No. 11, 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 recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 11.
Objections to the R&R were due on December 3, 2015, and Plaintiff has not filed objections.
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, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R in this case. Noting that Plaintiff filed no
objections, the R&R, ECF No. 11, is hereby ACCEPTED. Therefore, for the reasons articulated
by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
May 2, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?