United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
se Plaintiff Andrew Ware brings this action against
Defendants, fourteen employees of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections: (1) Betty Smith; 2) Mr. Samuel; 3)
Mr. Green; 4) Warden Dunlap; 5) Associate Warden Ingrahm; 6)
Associate Warden Stonebreaker; 7) Michael McCall; 8) Warden
Cartledge; 9) Associate Warden Claytor; 10) Major Earley; 11)
Captain Degeorgis; 12) Lt. Busby-Smith; 13) Sgt. Daniel
Cotter; and 14) Lt. D. Arrowood (“Defendants”).
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of his
confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, that he was denied due
process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that
Defendants conspired to deprive him of these rights. (ECF No.
1 at 4-5.) First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted
beyond the scope of their authority by intentionally
depriving him of his personal property. Id. Second,
Plaintiff complains about several conditions of confinement,
including alleged poor food service. (ECF No. 1 at 3-5.)
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on
June 1, 2016, ruled that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No.
1) fails to state a claim for relief, is frivolous and
attempts to take legal actions against individuals protected
by immunity and recommends that the court summarily dismiss
Plaintiff's action with prejudice. (ECF No. 16.) The
Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court
incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendation herein
without a recitation.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 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 Magistrate
Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility
to make a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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).
was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 16 at 14.) However, Plaintiff filed
no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the
absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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 and Recommendation 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.
thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the
record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein. (ECF No. 16.) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs
Complaint (ECF No. 1) is summarily dismissed with prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue… only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability… shall
indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing
required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this
court's assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling
by the district court is likewise debatable. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell,537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee,252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). ...