JOINER V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/21/2013.(abuc) Modified to correct file date on 10/22/2013 (abuc). [Transferred from South Carolina on 10/22/2013.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
Department of Public Safety, et al.;
)
Piedmont Correctional Institution, et al.;
)
Jennifer Harris, RN, NCI; and Correct
)
Care Solution, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 1:13-02507-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 8], filed on September 25, 2013, recommending that this
case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein
without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 8 at 6].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to
appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and the record in this case.
The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8]. For the reasons articulated by
the magistrate judge, it is therefore ORDERED the above listed case is TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
October 21, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina