Daniel v. GAT Airline Ground Support

Filing 8

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 6) and hereby dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/22/2023. (dgar)

2:23-cv-00201-BHH

Date Filed 05/22/23

Entry Number 8

Page 1 of 3

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

Alicia Daniel,
Plaintiff,

v.
GAT Airline Ground Support,

)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-201-BHH

Defendant.
)
________________________________)
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Alicia Daniel’s (“Plaintiff”)
complaint alleging a claim for failure to accommodate under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). A summons was issued on January 17, 2023,
with a service deadline of April 17, 2023. (ECF No. 3.) 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
determinations.
On May 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a report
and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that
the Court dismiss this action for lack of prosecution, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of
the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, and noting that the 90-day period for
service of process has passed and that it does not appeal that Plaintiff intends

2:23-cv-00201-BHH

Date Filed 05/22/23

Entry Number 8

Page 2 of 3

to execute service in this action. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
was a notice advising Plaintiff of his 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 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

2

2:23-cv-00201-BHH

Date Filed 05/22/23

Entry Number 8

Page 3 of 3

record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error
and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 6) and hereby dismisses this
action without prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 22, 2023
Charleston, South Carolina

3