Griggs v. US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 11

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 6 Report and Recommendation, dismissing action without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 5/2/2013. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of
)
Prisons; FPC Bennettsville, SC; FPC Beckley,
)
WV,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________ )

Steven Charles Griggs,

Civil Action No.: 0:13-608-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Steven Charles Griggs (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding, pro se, filed this
civil action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 against the U.S.
Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, FPC Bennettsville, SC and FPC Beckley, WV
(“Defendants”), on March 7, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) The 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) D.S.C. On March 27, 2013,
Magistrate Judge Gossett issued a Report and Recommendation recommending inter alia that the
court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and service of process.
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 6 at 8.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on April 15,
2013. In the absence 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 and advisory committee’s
note).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and
this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Spartanburg, South Carolina
May 2, 2013

-2-