From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rutland v. Dorchester County Detention Center

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jun 16, 2009
Civil Action No. 8:09-274-SB (D.S.C. Jun. 16, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 8:09-274-SB.

June 16, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.

On May 19, 2009, Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiffs complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss the Defendant Dorchester County Detention Center with prejudice because it is not a "person" subject to liability under § 1983. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of his right to file specific, written objections to the R R within ten days of the date of service of the R R. To date, no objections have been filed.

Absent timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions.Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because the Plaintiff did not file any specific, written objections, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R R. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R as the Order of this Court, and it is

ORDERED that the Defendant Dorchester County Detention Center is dismissed with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rutland v. Dorchester County Detention Center

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jun 16, 2009
Civil Action No. 8:09-274-SB (D.S.C. Jun. 16, 2009)
Case details for

Rutland v. Dorchester County Detention Center

Case Details

Full title:William Howard Rutland III, Plaintiff, v. Dorchester County Detention…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jun 16, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 8:09-274-SB (D.S.C. Jun. 16, 2009)

Citing Cases

Miles v. Vandermosten

It is well settled that only “persons” may act under color of state law, and, therefore, a defendant in a §…

Hendrix v. State Entities/Corp.

” See Harden v. Green, 27 Fed.Appx. 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); Rutland v. Dorchester Cnty. Det. Ctr.,…