Reynolds v. Neal

Full title: Robert Lee Reynolds, II, Plaintiff, v. J. Neal, Warden John J. Lamanna…

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

Date published: May 12, 2008

C/A NO. 4:07-1724-CMC-TER (D.S.C. May. 12, 2008)

Opinion

C/A NO. 4:07-1724-CMC-TER.

May 12, 2008

OPINION and ORDER

CAMERON CURRIE, District Judge

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

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 Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On April 25, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on May 8, 2008.

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 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's objections are merely repetitive of the arguments which were assessed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge, offering no persuasive legal authority to indicate the Magistrate Judge erred in his analysis of the motions and Plaintiff's complaint.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.