Smyth v. Bianco

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/8/2014.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Keith Adger Smyth
Plaintiff,
v.
Salvatore Bianco, MD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-2150-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Keith Adger Smyth, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Defendant Salvatore Bianco, MD, on June 4, 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) 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.1 See R & R, ECF No. 11. In the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court summarily dismiss the complaint
without prejudice and without service of process. See id. at 2.
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

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff’s complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections 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 recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and
without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 8, 2014

2