Witherspoon v. Lane
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying without prejudice 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and withoutissuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 7/31/2017.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
JARODE JERMAINE WITHERSPOON,
a/k/a Jarode J.L. Witherspoon,
A/WARDEN G. LANE, Classification,
§ Civil Action No.: 9:16-03868-MGL-BM
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied
without prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court need not
conduct a de novo review, however, “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that
do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on June 20, 2017, ECF No. 14, but Plaintiff failed
to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without
issuance and service of process, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 31st day of July 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from
the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?