Lobo v. Norman et al

Filing 54

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 50 . It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 42 is GRANTED and that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/18/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Oscar Rivera Lobo,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Sgt. Norman; Allen Tinasley; Sgt.
)
Bambridge; John Doe, Officer; Jane
)
Doe, Officer,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.1:11-cv-00254-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.
50]. Plaintiff is an inmate housed at the Greenville County Detention Center (“GCDC”) at the time
of the Report and Recommendation. In his Complaint [Doc. 1], Plaintiff alleged various claims for
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, filed on September 23, 2011, recommends that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 42] be granted and Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal
standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein
without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) 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 Mathews 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 and Recommendation 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
1

recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
50-1]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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). 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
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 50]. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 42] is GRANTED and that
Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 18, 2011

2