Holcomb v. Kindley et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Lieutenant Duncan and South Carolina Law Enforcement Division terminated. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/18/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
DEAN ALTON HOLCOMB,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
vs.
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-00672-MGL-SVH
§
LIEUTENANT JEFF KINDLEY;
§
LIEUTENANT DUNCAN; SOUTH
§
CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT
§
DIVISION (SLED); and 2 UNKNOWN SLED §
AGENTS,
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT
ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS AS TO DEFENDANTS DUNCAN AND SLED
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process as to Defendants Lieutenant Duncan and SLED. 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 March 25, 2016, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections to the Report. “[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.3d310, 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 pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance
and service of process as to Defendants Lieutenant Duncan and SLED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 18th day of April, 2016, 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