Garrett v. Marten et al

Filing 16

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, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Clinton Lee Garrett, C/A No. 9:15-cv-03623-TLW Plaintiff, v. ORDER Dr. Marten, Tracy Krien, Marshall Stowers, Ronald Hollister, and John Vandermosen, Defendants. 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). 1 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 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?