Bradshaw v. Officer Malicki et al

Filing 41

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 38, and incorporates it by reference herein. The court also deems an earlier Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 22, as it recommended summary dismissal of Plaintiff's original complaint, which he then amended. See ECF No. 27, 34. This matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 05/10/2024. (apsn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jovan Bradshaw,

C/A No. 0:23-cv-4364-SAL
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Tabitha Carson; Oakdale Elementary School,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Jovan Bradshaw, a pro se litigant, brings this civil rights action. This matter is
before the court on a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending the court dismiss this case without prejudice and
without issuance of service of process. [ECF No. 38.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising
Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. Id. at 7. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the
time for doing so has expired.
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 this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

1

accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance
with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 38, and
incorporates it by reference herein. The court also deems an earlier Report and Recommendation,
ECF No. 22, as it recommended summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s original complaint, which he
then amended. See ECF No. 27, 34. This matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 10, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina

Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge

2