Davis v. Hallorday et al

Filing 12

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 2/19/2015. (cbru, ) Modified to edit text on 2/19/2015 (cbru, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mike Davis,

) Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-60-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
George Hallorday, recle case maniger;
)
Candy and all stef of sangetions of arria
)
of Mental Health of Clonmia; and Arria
)
of Men and the Cannie,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________
Plaintiff Mike Davis (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action against
the above-named Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the Court for review of
the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending
that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
because Plaintiff failed to show any basis for the Court to exercise subject-matter
jurisdiction over this matter. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
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, 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 determination of any portion of the Report and
Recommendation 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 and Recommendation 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).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on January 29, 2015.
(ECF No. 10.)

No objections have been filed and the time for doing so expired on

February 17, 2015. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir.1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir.1985).
After a thorough review of the record in this case and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the standard set forth above, the
Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
February 19, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-2-