Breyan v. Classification

Filing 11

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/3/2017.(ssam, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael A. Breyan, #332098, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Classification Employees, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ C/A No.: 2:17-62-BHH ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Mary Gordon Baker made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On January 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 8.) 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on January 27, 2017.1 In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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 and advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge February 3, 2017 Greenville, South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL 1 Plaintiff filed a letter on January 17, 2017, in which he “request[s] another 1983 packet.” (ECF No. 10.) This letter in no way qualifies as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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?