Ghouralal v. United States et al

Filing 10

ORDER The Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's 7 Report and Recommendation, and this action is dismissed without issuance and service of process and is deemed frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 04/30/2020.(hada, )

2:20-cv-00810-BHH

Date Filed 04/30/20

Entry Number 10

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Alecia Ghouralal,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
United States, Thomas Nelson,
)
John Travers, Hung Nguyen,
)
Catholic Church of Diocese,
)
State of South Carolina, Paul Rambo, )
Brandy Willey, George R. Rambo,
)
and Scott William Hendrix,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:20-810-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Alecia Ghouralal’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
complaint. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
review.
On March 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court
summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without issuance and service of process as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice
advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of
being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court

2:20-cv-00810-BHH

Date Filed 04/30/20

Entry Number 10

Page 2 of 2

is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report
(ECF No. 7), and this action is dismissed without issuance and service of process and is
deemed frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
April 30, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina

2