Gladden v. McDonald et al

Filing 13

ORDER adopting the #9 Report and Recommendation and summarily dismissing this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by the Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on August 28, 2024. (ahil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
OBRYANT TERRELLE GLADDEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WAYNE MCDONALD and COLOR
CREATION TOW COMPANY,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 0:24-3789-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiff Obryant Terrelle Gladden (Gladden), who is representing himself, filed this action
against Defendants Wayne McDonald and Color Creation Tow Company, alleging they vandalized
and neglected his personal property in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of
the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court summarily dismiss this case without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 July 22, 2024. To date, Gladden has failed to file
any objections.
“[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 under the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court this case is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance
and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 28th day of August 2024, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are 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