Mann v. Kirkland

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING 64 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/13/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Anthony L. Mann,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ofc. Kirkland,
Defendant.

)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)

No.0:14-cv-03241
ORDER

...,.,
-

-

r-->

="

0

n

~

." 'i.

vJ

l)

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R &

.r;:;

,r'"'n
~~..1

~,

14 of the
o

Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 64recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice
),
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R. For the reasons
stated below, the Court the adopts the R & R and dismisses this action.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. 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." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Here, however, because no objection has been
made, this Court "must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note).
Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any
1

explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v.

Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Despite an explanation in a Roseboro Order that this case would be dismissed if Plaintiff
failed to respond to Defendants' motion for summary jUdgment (Dkt. No. 52) and a second order
giving Plaintiff an additional 14 days to respond and advising Plaintiff that the case would be
dismissed if he did not respond (Dkt. No. 59), Plaintiff has still not filed a response. Nor has he
filed a response to the R & R recommending dismissal with prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has satisfied all the
criteria for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
factors set forth in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982).
Therefore, the District Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R, (Dkt. No. 64), as
the Order of this Court. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
October ~, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

2