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.

Bennekin v. Polson

United States District Court, District of South Carolina

April 8, 2015

Terance Terill Bennekin, Plaintiff,
v.
Kenneth Bryan Polson; Niyoka Monique Stone, Defendants.

ORDER AND OPINION

BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Terance Terill Bennekin (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and punitive damages. (ECF. No. 1.)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. The matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 5, 2015. (ECF No. 27.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process against the defendant Stone. Id. Objections to the Report were due by February 23, 2015. The plaintiff has filed no Objections.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 27), by reference into this Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as against the defendant Stone, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.


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.