Opinion
C/A No. 2:05-1946-GRA-RSC.
September 8, 2005
ORDER (Written Opinion)
This matter is before the Court for a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed August 11, 2005. Plaintiff, a detainee at the Charleston County Detention Center, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the wrongful death of his cousin, Robert Hall, who was also detained at the Charleston County Detention Center. The magistrate recommends that the complaint be dismissed because Plaintiff's wrongful death claim has been filed in the wrong court.
Plaintiff is proceeding 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. 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. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
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 (1976). 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 has not filed objections.
After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that the report is based upon the proper law. Under South Carolina law, Plaintiff's claims are cognizable under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, § 15-78-10 et seq., and must, therefore, be brought in a South Carolina state court. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.