Glenn v. Stowe et al
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 18 Report and Recommendation adopting the Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 1/6/2014. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Andres Leroy Glenn,
Lize Stowe, Sue Gale, Elizebeth Escack,
and Mehell Moore,
C/A NO. 3:13-2927-CMC-SVH
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for
filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed
no objections and the time for doing so has expired.1
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
Plaintiff has sent two letters to the Clerk, received for filing on December 17 and December
30, 2013. Neither of these letters addresses the Report and Recommendation.
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference
in this Order.
This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
January 6, 2014
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?