Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2013
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, James Corbett, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights when they treated him with medications after he cut his arm. At the time of the incidents alleged herein, the plaintiff was housed at the Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, a facility of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, James Corbett, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights when they treated him with medications after he cut his arm. At the time of the incidents alleged herein, the plaintiff was housed at the Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, a facility of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a R..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, James Corbett, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights when they treated him with medications after he cut his arm. At the time of the incidents alleged herein, the plaintiff was housed at the Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, a facility of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the defendants' motion for summary judgment2 should be granted. 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 notified of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. However, the plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time within which to do so has now expired. 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).
The Magistrate Judge properly notes in his Report that prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). The Magistrate Judge also opines that the defendants have met their burden of showing that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Anderson v. XYZ Correctional Health Svcs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) on the issue of exhaustion is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
