Moorer v. Austide et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R (ECF No. 16 ) of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 08/16/2017. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Curtis Glenn Moorer,
Chris Austide, State of South Carolina, and )
New Ellenton Municipal Court,
Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00880-RBH
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
See R & R [ECF No. 16]. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based
upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders.1 R & R at 1–2.
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).
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the
The R & R indicates the dismissal should be with prejudice. See R & R at 1 (“Federal courts possess an
inherent authority to dismiss cases with prejudice sua sponte.”).
Plaintiff’s objections were due by August 14, 2017. See ECF Nos. 16-1 & 18.
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 therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 16] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
August 16, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?