From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Reynolds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jul 30, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:15-486-MGL-BM (D.S.C. Jul. 30, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:15-486-MGL-BM

07-30-2015

GEORGE N.S. JONES, SR., M.S. also known as George S. Jones, Sr., Plaintiff, v. WARDEN MS. REYNOLDS, ASSOCIATE WARDEN DAVIS, WARDEN SHARP, and ALL STATE OFFICIALS OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court that Plaintiff's action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 Magistrate Judge filed the Report on June 30, 2015, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections. "[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 that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 30th day of July, 2015, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary G. Lewis

MARY G. LEWIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Plaintiff is 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.


Summaries of

Jones v. Reynolds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jul 30, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:15-486-MGL-BM (D.S.C. Jul. 30, 2015)
Case details for

Jones v. Reynolds

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE N.S. JONES, SR., M.S. also known as George S. Jones, Sr.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION

Date published: Jul 30, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:15-486-MGL-BM (D.S.C. Jul. 30, 2015)