Holmes v. Aiken County Detention Center

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Ricky Antonio Holmes, C/A No. 1:20-224-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER E. Riddell, D. Kudron, J. Whitaker, Aiken County Sheriff Office, and C. Erikson,

Defendants.

Ricky Antonio Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lieutenant E. Riddell (“Riddell”), Sergeant D. Kudron (“Kudron”), Lieutenant J. Whitaker (“Whitaker”), Aiken County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”), and Sergeant C. Erikson (“Erikson”) (collectively “Defendants”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 12). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards 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(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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). On February 11, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge also advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the Report by February 25, 2020. However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 12). Therefore, Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Cptogh Cader March 17, 2020 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge