Mooney v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, for 23 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on August 21, 2013. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Reginald Bernard Mooney, #53850-019,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Federal Bureau of Prisons;
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 3:12-3255-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 23], filed on July 31, 2013, recommending that Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 15] be granted.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2671. Plaintiff
alleges claims for negligence and malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates
herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

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 is charged with making a de novo determination 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 Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 23 at 12].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report, and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the
record in this case. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 23]. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 15] is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 21, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2