Campbell v. Fitzsimmons et al
Filing
16
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations, and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/12/09. (kmca)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Jimmy Campbell, Jr., #274477, Plaintiff, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 8:08-3805-TLW-BHH
)
Robert Fitzsimmons, Attorney; Jarrett Douglas, Officer; Charles Gonzalez, Officer; Carol A. McCurry, Solicitor; Barbara McIlwain, Victim, ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Jimmy Campbell ("Plaintiff"), brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 18, 2008. (Doc. #1.) Plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #2.) This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Rule 73.02(B) (D.S.C.). On January 6, 2009, Judge Hendricks granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. #10.) In accordance with this same statute, Judge Hendricks reviewed Plaintiff's complaint sua sponte under the provisions found in Section (e), and filed a Report and Recommendation (the "Report"). (Doc. #11.) This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. On January 27, 2009, the Plaintiff filed objections to the report (the "Objections"). (Doc. #13.) Thereafter, the Court reviewed the Report and the Plaintiff's Objections. In conducting this
review, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the Objections. After careful review of the Report and Objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report, (Doc. #11), and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge March 12, 2009 Florence, South Carolina
]]>
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?
