White v. Riley et al

Filing 44

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/3/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
James W. White,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Tim Riley, Gary Lane, Jerry Alexander,
)
James Parish, Christine Thompson, and
)
DL Ferguson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02262-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 41], filed on April 8, 2013, recommending that Plaintiff’s
Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff brought this
action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report set forth in detail the relevant
facts and legal standards on these matters which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report 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
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 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 [Dkt. No. 41 at 3].

1

However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, 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 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).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the record in this case, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report provides
an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the record in this case. The court
ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 41]. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED
with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 3, 2013

2