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.

Buff v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

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

November 7, 2014

DAVID BUFF, a/k/a David Keith Buff, a/k/a Osiris, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and BRYAN P. STIRLING, Defendants.

ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff David Buff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC") and Bryan P. Stirling. (Doc. #1). Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Special Management Unit at the Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina, and he alleges that the Unit's policies violate his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss this action without prejudice as to Defendant SCDC. (Doc. #14). Plaintiff's objections to the Report were due by September 15, 2014. Plaintiff failed to file objections, and the matter is now ripe for disposition.

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).

In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #14). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant SCDC.

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.