Davis v. South Carolina, The State of et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/15/2015. (mwal)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
State of South Carolina; Solicitor John
)
Mark Shiflet; Solicitor Kristen Danielle
Smith; and Solicitor Jenny Desch,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________
Antonio Davis,

Civil Action No.: 0:15-848-MGL

ORDER

On February 26, 2015, the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff Antonio Davis’s 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for review pursuant to the procedural
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A . On March 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge prepared
a thorough Report and Recommendation, (Report), recommending that this action be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff
failed to file any Objections 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
1 

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. 7), and finding no clear error
in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service
of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 15th day of June, 2015, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2