McDonald v. Quinn et al
ORDER AND OPINION ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismissing the complaint 1 without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 10/30/2015. (gmil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jesse Lee McDonald,
Officer J. Quinn; Greenville County,
Municipality; Major Stowers; Ronald
Hollister; John Vadermosten,
Civil Action No.: 0:15-3771-GRAPJG
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff, Jesse Lee McDonald (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights had
been violated. (ECF No. 1.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett for a Report and Recommendation. On October 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process due to Plaintiff’s failure to
state facts which set forth a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF
No. 10.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. See 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 Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court
may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 10 at 7.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time
for doing so has expired. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting
the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather,
“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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory
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 the complaint be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 30, 2015
Anderson, 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?