Fox v. Ward

Full title: Cecil Fox, Plaintiff, v. Robert Ward et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

Date published: Feb 25, 2008

C.A. No. 3:06-3439-TLW-JRM (D.S.C. Feb. 25, 2008)

Opinion

C.A. No. 3:06-3439-TLW-JRM.

February 25, 2008

ORDER

TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Allendale Correctional Institution.

On December 28, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph McCrorey, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), filed a Report and Recommendation ("the Report"). In his Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. On January 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate's report.

This Court is charged with reviewing the Magistrate's report and the Plaintiff's objections thereto. In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).

In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto and has concluded that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 5); Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 7); and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.