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.

Patterson v. McCall

United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Orangeburg Division

January 21, 2015

Eugene D. Patterson, Jr. Plaintiff,
v.
Michael McCall; Lt. Robert Durant; Bruce Oberman; Ass. Warden James Dean; Mr. Elbert Pearson; Sgt. Long, Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 11), filed on December 22, 2014, recommending that the district court partially dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) in this case insofar as it seeks relief for continued placement in the Lee Correctional Institution's Special Management Unit ("SMU"). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.

The magistrate judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff was advised of his rights to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 11 at 6). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.11). For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is PARTIALLY DISMISSED in this case insofar as it seeks relief for continued placement in the Lee SMU. Furthermore, Defendants are directed to respond only to those portions of the Complaint that do not involve the SMU-placement issue.

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.