Richardson v. Stirling et al

Filing 32

ORDER adopting 30 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. This case is DISMISSED because Plaintiff failed to file this suit within the applicable statute of limitations. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/20/2018.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jackie Richardson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bryan Stirling, Cecilia Reynolds, Jerry
Washington, Lisa Engram, Catherine
Amason, Marie Leggins and John Does,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:17-01554-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action
seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code Section 1983. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate
judge for pretrial handling.

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation (“Report”), that this action be dismissed because Plaintiff’s suit is time-barred.
(ECF No. 30). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 30 at
10). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

1

After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 30), which is incorporated
herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED,
and this case is DISMISSED because Plaintiff failed to file this suit within the applicable statute
of limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
March 20, 2018
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2