Charley v. Orangeburg County Sheriff Department et al, No. 5:2011cv00051 - Document 17 (D.S.C. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations. Motions denied: 15 MOTION for Discovery filed by Timothy Charley, 14 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Timothy Charley. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/22/2011. (cbru, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Charley v. Orangeburg County Sheriff Department et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Timothy Charley, #265146, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Orangeburg County Sheriff [sic] ) Department, and Captain Rene Williams, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 5:11-51-CMC-KFM OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on February 10, 2011, and filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for discovery. 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is 1 Dockets.Justia.com made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Plaintiff misconstrues the import and application of the cited case, Wilson v. Johnson, 535 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2008), to this matter. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and for discovery are denied. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina February 22, 2011 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.
