Puckett v. Chester County Sheriff's Office
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 30 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the Plaintiff's action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/12/2016. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Shannon D. Puckett,
Chester County Sheriff’s Office,
Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-01392-JMC
This matter comes before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 30], filed on June 9, 2016, recommending that the action
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful
termination. [ECF No. 1.] The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on
this matter, and this court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 Matthews 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 to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of her right to file an objection to the Report
within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report. [ECF No. 30.] Plaintiff filed no
objections. In the absence of an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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). Instead, the court 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 advisory
committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in
a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds that the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant matter and does not
contain any clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 30.] It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action [ECF No. 1] be DISMISSED
with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
September 12, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?