Chieves v. South Carolina State House et al - Document 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Darrine N. Chieves, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) South Carolina State House; State of South ) Carolina; Julie Ann Avin, Executive Director; ) CPD Arresting Badge 22333; Officer ) Dabrowski; Greg Pearce, Representative ) Richland County Nov. 2011 Council Adm. ) Transitions; SCDMH; US District Div 3, ) Columbia; The Richland County Public ) Defender, Councilmen, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) C/A No. 3:12cv241-JFA-KFM ORDER The pro se plaintiff brings this civil action pro se, and in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that because the complaint is incomprehensible, it is subject to summary dismissal in violation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(A). The Magistrate Judge also suggests that the complaint is both frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 On February 15, 2012, the plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which was filed on that same day, and advised of his right to file objections to the Report. The plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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 plaintiff has been advised by order of the court that he must keep the court advised at all times of his current address. The plaintiff has failed to do so, and the court has no way to communicate with the plaintiff. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 19, 2012 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge 2