Opinion
C/A No. 4:11-2994-TMC
04-30-2013
Steve Lester, Plaintiff, v. Perry Correctional Institution, L.T. Church and DHO Turner, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, Steve Lester ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, an inmate at Perry Correctional Institution, filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge. On April 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) be granted for the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the Complaint be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 76-1). Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report on April 25, 2013. (ECF No. 78.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71 (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 is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
As noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report which the court has carefully reviewed. However, the Plaintiff's objections provide no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants' for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED and this Complaint is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
April 30, 2013
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.