From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. Cannon

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Aug 10, 2006
C/A No. 2:05-2634-GRA-RSC (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2006)

Opinion

C/A No. 2:05-2634-GRA-RSC.

August 10, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the Court for a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed July 20, 2006. Plaintiff brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate recommends dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and counting it as a "strike" against Plaintiff under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation.

After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that the report is based upon the proper law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and be counted as a "strike" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Filing of Disposition on the part of Sheriff Cannon and McDaniel Supply and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel be DISMISSED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bennett v. Cannon

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Aug 10, 2006
C/A No. 2:05-2634-GRA-RSC (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Bennett v. Cannon

Case Details

Full title:Edward B. Bennett, #491741; Plaintiff, v. J. Al Cannon, Sheriff of…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

Date published: Aug 10, 2006

Citations

C/A No. 2:05-2634-GRA-RSC (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2006)

Citing Cases

Whaley v. Gallam

Further, to the extent Petitioner alleges the change in classification resulted in loss of canteen access,…

Van Starling v. Stirling

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to canteen, television, education programs, vocational…