Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Steven D. Davis,                                                                                               )   C/A No.   8:11-1367-JFA-JDA
                                                                                                               )
Plaintiff,                                                                                                     )
v.                                                                                                             )   ORDER
                                                                                                               )
Officer A. Williams; Officer Lomax;                                                                            )
Danielle Mitchell; and Brenda Pivovarnik,                                                                      )
)
Defendants.                                                                                                    )
______________________________________   )
The pro se plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that while
he  was  incarcerated,  the  defendants  read  plaintiff’s  legal  mail  in  violation  of  his
constitutional rights.
The  Magistrate  Judge  assigned  to  this  action 1 has  prepared  a  Report  and
Recommendation and opines that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be
granted.   2  The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report was issued and mailed on April 6, 2012.  The plaintiff
did not file objections to the Report.   In the absence of specific objections to the Report of
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.   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).
2
An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff
of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
1




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).   Moreover, the
envelope containing the copy of the Report was returned by the U.S. Postmaster marked
“Returned to Sender.”
The Magistrate Judge suggests that plaintiff has not established a violation of his
constitutional rights and that he has failed to make specific allegations as to any actual injury
sustained.   The Magistrate Judge also opines that the defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law.   The Report is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) is granted
and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 21, 2012                                                                                        Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina                                                                            United States District Judge
2

Download 23257.pdf

South Carolina Law