Opinion
C/A NO. 9:06-3082-CMC-GCK.
November 29, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint raising allegations related to the conditions of his confinement at the Lexington County Detention Center.
Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at the time he filed his complaint. By letter received November 27, 2006, Plaintiff notified this court that he had been released from the Lexington County Detention Center.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On November 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on November 27, 2006.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's Objections, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. Plaintiff contends in his Objections that Defendants have failed to answer Plaintiff's grievances and have "ignored" his complaints. This, however, does not excuse Plaintiff's failure to exhaust.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.