Filed: Jul. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff, Andrew Plummer ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on or about July 1, 2013 challenging various conditions of his confinement at Tyger River Correctional Institute. (Doc. #1). This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") issued on August 16, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this
Summary: ORDER TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff, Andrew Plummer ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on or about July 1, 2013 challenging various conditions of his confinement at Tyger River Correctional Institute. (Doc. #1). This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") issued on August 16, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this c..
More
ORDER
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff, Andrew Plummer ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or about July 1, 2013 challenging various conditions of his confinement at Tyger River Correctional Institute. (Doc. #1).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") issued on August 16, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #10). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendant R.L. Turner. (Doc. #10). The Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report.
The Report was mailed to the Plaintiff at the mailing address the Plaintiff provided to the Court, and that mail was not returned. (See Doc. #11). The Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report recommending dismissal of Defendant R.L. Turner from the above-captioned case. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file objections to the Report expired on September 3, 2013. (See Doc. #10).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and all other relevant filings in this matter. After careful consideration, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10) be ACCEPTED. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. #1) be dismissed in its entirety without issuance and without service of process with regard to Defendant R.L. Turner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
