United States District Court, D. South Carolina
MARSHALL L. WATKINS, Plaintiff,
PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MRS. JOHNSON, GRIEVANCE CLERKS, and LT. TEEHAN, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 21, 2014, and the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff's objections on April 3, 2014. The Court has considered the objections, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff generally makes the same arguments in his objections that he did in his Complaint. In that the Magistrate Judge has already considered those claims and rightly suggested that they be dismissed, the Court will not discuss them again here.
Plaintiff brings one additional claim in his objections, however, that he did not bring in his complaint: that the Department of Corrections, a state agency, is improperly billing him for the medicines they are providing to Plaintiff while he is incarcerated. But, this claim also must be dismissed because neither a state agency nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Plaintiff's complaint is ...