Whitefield v. Brown et al

Filing 34

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 29 Report and Recommendations, dismissing Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/19/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
William Whitefield,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Case Manager, Mrs. L. Brown; Warden D. )
Drew; Harley Lappin, Federal Bureau of
)
Prisons Director,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 0:10-02730-TMC

ORDER

William Whitefield (“Plaintiff”), a pro se prisoner, filed this civil action against the
Defendants pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 29),
filed on April 18, 2011, recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail
the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate
Judge’s Report 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

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
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
1

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 and Recommendation
(Doc. # 29 at 9). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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
and Recommendation 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 29) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Complaint in the above-captioned
case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 19, 2011
2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3