Garrett v. Spartanburg County Detention Center et al, No. 1:2022cv04547 - Document 17 (D.S.C. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER adopting the 12 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr. on 2/23/2023. (lbak)

Download PDF
Garrett v. Spartanburg County Detention Center Date et al 1:22-cv-04547-HMH Filed 02/23/23 Entry Number 17 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Kerion Garrett, Plaintiff, vs. Spartanburg County Detention Center; Spartanburg County; and Sheriff Chuck Wright, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 1:22-4547-HMH-SVH OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Kerion Garrett (“Garrett”), a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, alleges Constitutional violations against the Defendants. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Garrett filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is 1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1:22-cv-04547-HMH Date Filed 02/23/23 Entry Number 17 Page 2 of 2 accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation 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). Upon review, the court finds that Garrett’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Garrett’s objections are without merit. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina February 23, 2023 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.