Evans v. Rutledge et al
Filing
41
ORDER ADOPTING 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Carr, dismissing this case without prejudice without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1). Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 3/3/09. (rpol, ) (ssan, ). Modified on 3/4/2009 replaced incorrect document with corrected document as provided by Chambers (ssan, ).
<![CDATA[
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Talmadge Evans, Jr, Plaintiff vs.
Nurse Jean Rutledge; Nurse NFN Pickens; Nurse Amy Enloe; Dr FNU Park; and Nurse Hoeing, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C/A: 2:08-cv-03785-GRA ORDER
This matter comes before the Court to review the magistrate's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., filed on January 21, 2009. Plaintiff originally filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to dismiss this action. On February 9, 2009, the defendants consented to this motion. On February 12, 2009, the magistrate recommended dismissing this action without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1). Plaintiff 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. See 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. See 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 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). The plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, applicable case law, and the record, this Court finds that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Wherefore, this case is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1).
Page 2 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED
Anderson, South Carolina March 3, 2009
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.
Page 3 of 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
