Preview:

Jackson v. Williams et al                                                                                    Doc. 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lawrence Dennell Jackson,                                                                                    )         C/A No. 3:10-3022-JFA-RSC
)
Plaintiff,                                                                                                   )
vs.                                                                                                          )
                                                                                                             )         ORDER
Mary S.  Williams,  Esq.;  Richard  C.  Jones,                                                               )
Esq.,                                                                                                        )
)
Defendants.                                                                                                  )
The pro se plaintiff, Lawrence Dennell Jackson, brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C.  §  1983  alleging  constitutional violations  by his  former state  conviction  relief
attorneys.   He seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief.
The  Magistrate  Judge  assigned  to  this  action 1 has  prepared  a  Report  and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that this action should be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.    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 docket reflects that the Report was filed on December 9, 2010, mailed to the
plaintiff, and returned to the Clerk on December 16, 2010 marked “undeliverable.”   The
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 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.   28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
Dockets.Justia.com




Clerk’s Office remailed the Report to another address on December 20, 2011.    As of the date
of this order, no objections to the Report have been filed by the plaintiff.  In the absence of
specific objections to the Report 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).
After  a  careful  review  of  the  record,  the  applicable  law,  and  the  Report  and
Recommendation, the  court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation  proper and
incorporated herein by reference.  Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
January 25, 2011                                                                                  United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
2

Download 25196.pdf

South Carolina Law