Orner v. Horry County et al
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 2/14/2012. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Justin M. Orner,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Horry County, Southern Health Care
Partners,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No.: 1:11-cv-02909-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter
is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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 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.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 In the absence
of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005)
stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
note).
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 this action is dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s.R Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
February 14, 2012
1
As a matter of fact, the copy of the Report and Recommendation that the court attempted to mail to
Plaintiff was returned undeliverable with its envelope indicating that Plaintiff was “not in jail,” and that it
was “unable to forward.” (Envelope [Docket Entry 23] at 1.) And, Plaintiff has failed to provide the court
with a current mailing address.
2
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?