Fields v. Southern Health Partners

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismisses 1 Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 5/5/2015. (gmil)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Edward Lashawn Fields,

) Civil Action No.: 0:15-624-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
)
Southern Health Partners, c/o Susan
)
Lopez, LPN,
)
)
Defendant. )
______________________________
On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff Edward Lashawn Fields, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for review pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A . On April 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report
and Recommendation, (“the Report”), recommending that the Complaint be summarily dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 11). Objections to the
Report were due by April 23, 2015. Plaintiff did not file an Objection to the Report. The matter is
now ripe for review by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 11), and finding no clear error
in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint
is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 5, 2015

-2-