Summary
finding no basis to conclude that the similar regulation and form delineating the procedure to appeal the decision of the superintendent to Central Office Review Committee was unreasonably confusing or opaque
Summary of this case from Jackins v. MuthraOpinion
9:04-CV-0479.
September 10, 2008
DECISION ORDER
This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation dated June 30, 2008 recommended that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, essentially raising the same arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge.
When objections to a magistrate judge's Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a " de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff's objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lowe for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED.