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.

Hewitt v. Bouch

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

May 27, 2015

Steven L. Hewitt, also known as, Steven Lee Hewitt, Sr., also known as, Steven Lee Hewitt, also known as, Steven Hewitt, Plaintiff,
v.
Cpl. Bouch, Defendant.

ORDER

MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff Steven L. Hewitt, ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for review pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge prepared a Report and Recommendation, ("the Report"), recommending that the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process on both grounds of failure to exhaust and failure to state actionable constitutional claims. (ECF No. 23). Objections to the Report were due by May 21, 2015. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for review by this Court.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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).

Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge's Report, (ECF No. 23), and finding no clear error in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 3), is DENIED as unsupported in both law and fact.

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.