From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lucas v. Rivera

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Mar 30, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-3373-HFF-RSC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2009)

Summary

holding that a prisoner "has no right protected by the constitution to buy items at the lowest price possible." (footnote omitted)

Summary of this case from Timms v. Johns

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-3373-HFF-RSC.

March 30, 2009


ORDER


This case was filed as 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 that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and any other motions be denied as moot. 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 March 5, 2009, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). 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 Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and any other motions are DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within 60 days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Lucas v. Rivera

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Mar 30, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-3373-HFF-RSC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2009)

holding that a prisoner "has no right protected by the constitution to buy items at the lowest price possible." (footnote omitted)

Summary of this case from Timms v. Johns

holding that a prisoner "has no right protected by the constitution to buy items at the lowest price possible"

Summary of this case from Cooke v. Johns

holding that a prisoner "has no right protected by the constitution to buy items at the lowest price possible"

Summary of this case from Francis v. Johns

stating that "Plaintiff has no right protected by the constitution to buy items at the lowest price possible"

Summary of this case from Canell v. Department of Corrections
Case details for

Lucas v. Rivera

Case Details

Full title:DEAN LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. ML RIVERA, Warden, Defendant

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-3373-HFF-RSC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2009)

Citing Cases

Timms v. Johns

" To the extent Timms complains he is subject to certain general BOP policies, "placement [of a civil…

Timms v. Johns

Generally, "placement [of a civil detainee] in a prison, subject to the institution's usual rules of conduct,…