Davis v. Henry et al
Filing
9
Opinion and Order adopting the 7 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 12/6/2016. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Curt Alan Davis,
C/A. No. 3:16-3371-CMC
Plaintiff
v.
Att. Sally J. Henry, Att. Robert Madsen,
Att. Brad Kirkland, Att. Casey N. Rankin,
Lexington County 11th Judicial Circuit
Solicitor’s Office,
Opinion and Order
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1.
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 Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On November 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed as it fails to claim against a Defendant
who is amenable to suit under § 1983. ECF No. 7. 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 filed no objections within the time for doing so, and his copy of the Report
was not returned to the court.
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 Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
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 conclusion of the Report that
this matter should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates
the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. This matter 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
December 6, 2016
2
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?