United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
filed on March 15, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) The Report addresses
Plaintiff David Richard Walker's suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and recommends that the court dismiss the case.
(ECF No. 10.) For the reasons stated herein, the court
ACCEPTS the Report, and
DISMISSES the case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 10.) As brief background, on March 8,
2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action alleging that
Defendants denied him access to legal materials and access to
supply items in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 1 at
4-5.) Plaintiff contends that the events giving rise to his
claims occurred while he was detained in the Lexington County
Detention Center, beginning in March 2013. (Id. at
5.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access
to a law library, law library contents, and supply items,
such as pens, paper, envelopes, and postage, and was
therefore unable to prepare documents and petitions for
litigation in state and federal courts. (Id. at
5-6.) Plaintiff appears to contend that the denial of access
to a law library and supply items violated his right of
access to the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment and his
right to petition the Government under the First Amendment.
(Id. at 6.) Plaintiff contends that the First
Amendment requires a detention center to adequately
accommodate a pretrial detainee with law library materials
and supply items such as pens, paper, envelopes, and postage
to ensure a prisoner's right of access to the courts and
right to petition the Government. (Id.) For his
injury, Plaintiff contends that the denial of the law library
and supply items impaired his ability to file petitions to
the Government and litigation in court, deprived Plaintiff of
due process, and violated his liberty and property rights.
(Id. at 7.) As a result, Plaintiff contends, he was
unable to properly litigate various claims in court under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for deliberate indifference
to medical care, conditions of confinement, and others.
(Id. at 7-8.) For his relief, Plaintiff requests
that the court grant compensatory damages in the amount of
$2, 000 from each Defendant, punitive damages, and
declaratory relief entitling Plaintiff access to the law
library and supply items. (Id. at 8.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As
such, the court is charged with making de novo
determinations of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
parties were apprised of their opportunity to file objections
to the Report on March 15, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) Objections to
the Report were due by March 29, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) However,
objections were due by April 3, 2019, if a party was served
by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 or Fed. R.
Crim. P. 45. (Id.) Defendants did not file an
objection to the Report. Plaintiff's Objection was filed
on May 3, 2019, which is well after the April 5, 2019
deadline. (Compare ECF No. 10, with ECF No.
16.) Given that Plaintiff's Objection is untimely, the
court need not consider it for purposes of reviewing the
Report. See Taylor v. Gainey, 203 Fed.Appx. 426, 427
(4th Cir. 2006) (“The timely filing of specific
objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is
necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of
that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the
consequences of noncompliance.”).
absence of timely 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). Instead, the court 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). After a thorough and careful review of the
record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the
instant case. (ECF No. 10.) Because Plaintiffs Objection is
untimely and there are no other objections, the court adopts
the Report herein. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, the court DISMISSES the
case. Further, Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No.
24), Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem (ECF No.
25) and Plaintiffs Motion for Legal Accommodations (ECF No.
30) are all DENIED AS MOOT.