Suttles v. North Carolina, State of
ORDER accepting 4 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The case is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/28/2017.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bruce James Suttles, #1489812,
C/A No. 2:16-cv-3297-TLW
North Carolina, State of,
Plaintiff Bruce James Suttles, proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking to have his name
removed from the sex offender registry of North Carolina (and other states). ECF No. 1. The
matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed
by Magistrate Judge Baker, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. ECF No. 4. In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice because the complaint does
not assert a basis for federal jurisdiction, but instead concerns only a matter of state law. No
objections were filed and the time to do so has expired.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to an R&R, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court carefully reviewed the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and
notes that Plaintiff filed no objections. After appropriate consideration, the Magistrate Judge’s
R&R is hereby ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the case is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
March 28, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?