Abdullah-Malik v. Reynolds et al
ORDER adopting and incorporating 51 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing this case with prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/25/2017. (mwal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Akeen Alin-Nafir Abdullah-Malik,
Cecila Reynolds, Warden; Jessica Edwards; )
Beth Tidwell; and Catherine Amason,
Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-00053-RBH
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the above-captioned Defendants. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R, ECF No. 51.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
dismiss this case with prejudice. R & R at 2, 12.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R 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).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R were originally due by June 8, 2017. See ECF No. 51. On June 6, 2017,
the Court issued a Text Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections and allowing him
to file objections by June 28, 2017. See ECF No. 54. Plaintiff was served with the Text Order by mail, so his
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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 and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 51] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 37] and DISMISSES this
case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
July 25, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
objections were technically due by July 5, 2017 (June 28 was a Wednesday, and the Court was closed on July 3 and
4). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). However, Plaintiff still has not filed objections.
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?