From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wall v. Knowlin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Oct 31, 2007
C.A. No. 9:07-3199-HMH-GCK (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2007)

Opinion

C.A. No. 9:07-3199-HMH-GCK.

October 31, 2007


OPINION ORDER


This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Patrick Jay Wall ("Wall"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wall alleges that the Defendants (1) were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, (2) subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, (3) denied him access to the courts, and (4) threatened him verbally. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Kosko recommends dismissing the case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Wall filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Upon review, the court finds Wall's objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Based on the foregoing, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Kosko's Report and Recommendation.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Wall's case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Wall v. Knowlin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Oct 31, 2007
C.A. No. 9:07-3199-HMH-GCK (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2007)
Case details for

Wall v. Knowlin

Case Details

Full title:Patrick Jay Wall, Plaintiff, v. Gregory Knowlin, Warden; NFN Bradshaw…

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

Date published: Oct 31, 2007

Citations

C.A. No. 9:07-3199-HMH-GCK (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2007)

Citing Cases

Rankins v. Rowland

A plaintiff may be entitled to relief pursuant to § 1983 based upon inadequate ventilation if such a…

Kinard v. McCall

The deprivations alleged in a conditions-of-confinement claim must be serious and the defendants must be…