Hines
v.
Robinson

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISIONAug 28, 2012
C/A No.: 6:12-cv-01834-GRA-KFM (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2012)

C/A No.: 6:12-cv-01834-GRA-KFM

08-28-2012

Willie Junior Hines, # 240466, Plaintiff, v. Chad Robinson; Adetoro Sobowale; Amy Enloe; Steven M. Pruitt; Terri Comp; Dave Tatarksy; Michael Laubshire; Robert Ward; Warden Michael McCall; Timothy P. Close, M.D.; W.J. Bayard, M.D.; and John Doe, Kirkland Medical Inst., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald'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 on August 8, 2012. Plaintiff commenced this pro se civil action on July 6, 2012. Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends that this Court partially dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant Steven M. Pruitt without prejudice. Plaintiff timely filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2012. For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the magistrate's recommendation in its entirety.

Petitioner brings this claim 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. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).

The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make 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).

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections are conclusory, non-specific, or unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, after a thorough review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate's Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is PARTIALLY DISMISSED against Defendant Steven M. Pruitt without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________


G. Ross Anderson, Jr.


Senior United States District Judge
August 28, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina


NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.