Clay v. LaManna

Full title: Clarence Clay, #10556-002, Plaintiff, v. John LaManna, Warden…

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

Date published: Oct 20, 2008

C/A No.: 8:08-cv-328-GRA (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2008)

Opinion

C/A No.: 8:08-cv-328-GRA.

October 20, 2008

ORDER (Written Opinion)

ROSS ANDERSON JR., District Judge

This matter comes before the Court to review the magistrate's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., filed on September 24, 2008. Plaintiff originally filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate now recommends that this Court grant the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, dismiss the petitioner's claims with prejudice, and deny the petitioner's Motion for the Issuance of a Subpoena as moot. For the reasons stated herein, this Court adopts the magistrate's recommendation.

Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).

The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1 976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Plaintiff did not file any objections.

After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, applicable case law, and the record, this Court finds that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED THAT the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, the petitioner's claims be DISMISSED with prejudice and the petitioner's Motion for the Issuance of a Subpoena be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.