-BHH Roach v. South Carolina Department of Correction et al, No. 8:2009cv02155 - Document 75 (D.S.C. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65 , denying 59 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Kenneth J Roach. Order signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on October 18, 2010. (ncha, )

Download PDF
-BHH Roach v. South Carolina Department of Correction et al Doc. 75 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION Kenneth J. Roach, # 283585, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) South Carolina Department of Correction; ) Mr. Day, Employee, Food Service Worker, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 8:09-2155-CMC-BHH 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)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ( Report ). On August 30, 2010, the Magistrate Jduge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff s motion for default be denied. 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 has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired. 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 made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by 1 Dockets.Justia.com the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. ) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 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 motion for default is denied. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina October 18, 2010 C:\Documents and Settings\nac60\Desktop\09-2155 order.wpd 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.