Frink-Hamlett v. Hammond

Filing 11

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/13/2017. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Katherine Frink-Hamlett, Individually and
as Administrator of the Estate of Timothy
Akil Hamlett, (deceased), PRO SE, 1033
Wilson Avenue, Teaneck, NJ 07666
Estate of Timothy Akil Hamlett,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Doris B. Hammond, Counselor PhD, LPC, )
920 Houndslake Drive, Aiken,
)
South Carolina 29803
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________
)

Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-01409- JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, Katherine Frink-Hamlett, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief
for state law tort claims. This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 8), filed on August 30, 2017, recommending
that Plaintiff’s action, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this
matter and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without
recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, and 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 objections are made, and the court
1

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 her right to file an objection to the Report “within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation,” or by September 13, 2017.
(ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed no objections.
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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The
court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8). It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action, (ECF No. 1), be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
September 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2