Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Southern Health Partners

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

October 2, 2014

Anthony L. Wright, Plaintiff,
v.
Southern Health Partners; Joanne Conley; Debra Brabham; Dr. Moore; Captain Chuck Frazier; Judy Rabon; Clinical Counselor Dennis; Clinical Counselor Strong; IGC James; and Warden Bernard Mackie, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Anthony L. Wright, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by employees of the Colleton County Detention Center and Southern Health Partners. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. #14). Objections to the Report were due on February 13, 2014. Plaintiff filed no objections.

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #14). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.