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.

Temple v. Oconee County

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

July 27, 2015

Dennis Temple, Plaintiff,
v.
Oconee County; Sheriff James Singleton; Captain Greg Reed; Sergeant Scott Arnold; Sergeant Jerry Moss; Solicitor Chrissy T. Adams; Assistant Solicitor Lindsey S. Simmons; Anderson-Independent Newspaper, Inc.; Reporter John Doe a/k/a Don Kausler; Daily Journal Newspaper, Inc.; Reporter Andrew Moore; Reporter Norman Cannon; Greenville Newspaper, Inc.; Publisher Steven R. Brandt; Editor John Pittman; Fox Carolina News, Inc.; Reporter Cody Alcorn; Reporter Diana Watson; News 13, Inc.; Reporter Darcel Grimes; Reporter Tammy Watford; News 7, Inc.; Reporter Gordon Dill; Reporter Tom Crabtree; News 4, Inc.; Reporter Carol Goldsmith; Reporter Nigel Robertson; in their individual capacity, Defendants.

ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The pro se plaintiff, Dennis Temple, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. The plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Perry Correctional Institution in South Carolina. He is serving a 100-year sentence upon his conviction for kidnaping and sexually assaulting a college student, and grand larceny. Plaintiff's claims that the defendants were personally involved in the violation of his rights; that they conspired together to falsely identify him as the attacker; the policies and customs in place violated his constitutional rights; and that the defendants committed libel, slander, and defamation.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] has prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the action be deemed a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and he has done so in a 10-page objection memorandum. In each and every objection, the plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge has "mischaracterized" his claims. Plaintiff then goes on to reassert and reargue the basic allegations in the underlying complaint. Although lengthy and prolix, the plaintiff's objection memorandum does not address in any meaningful way the legal analysis provided by the Magistrate Judge who diligently reviewed this case. As such, the objections are overruled. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, this court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Clerk shall designate this action as a "strike."

Plaintiff's motion for recusal (ECF No. 18) is denied as well.

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.