The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marion Lamont Brown, Jr., C/A No. 1:20-226-JFA-SVH
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
Cpl. T. Chandler, Ofc. Hester, and Deputy
Warden John Palmer,
Defendants.
Marion Lamont Brown, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corporal T. Chandler (“Corporal”), Officer Hester
(“Officer”), and Deputy Warden John Palmer (“Deputy Warden”) (collectively “Defendants”), in
their individual capacities. 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. 14). 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.
On February 12, 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
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).
to object to the Report by February 26, 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. 14). 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