Faust v. Nash
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 that the defendants motion for summary judgment [docket #15] is herebyGRANTED., 23 . Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 3/10/09. (ahen, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Richard W. Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Ray Nash, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No.: 0:08-00666-RBH
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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). 1
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment [docket #15] is hereby GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. BRYAN HARWELL United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina March 10, 2009
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?