Alston v. Beck et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of this Court Alston's action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and his 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Signed by the Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on September 25, 2024. (ahil)

•

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
LONDELL LASHUN ALSTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDGE WALTON HENRY BECK and THE
COUNTY OF YORK,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:24-3433-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORM PAUPERIS
Plaintiff Londell Lashun Alston (Alston) filed this lawsuit against Defendants Judge
Walton Hentry Beck and the County of York.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court this action be dismissed without prejudice
and Alston’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. The Report was made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 29, 2024, but the Alston failed to file any
objections to the Report. “[I]n 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 advisory committee’s note).
Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of
this Court Alston’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 25th day of September, 2024, in Columbia, South Carolina.

/s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

2

Alston 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.

3