Reaves v. Mecklenburg, County Of et al
Filing
32
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 29 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 5/27/2011. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Kathy Reaves,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Robert A. Covington,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 4:08-1989-TLW-SVH
ORDER
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had
previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be
dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc. # 29). No objections
have been filed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge=s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. '
636. In the absence of objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s Report. For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s Report
and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 29). Therefore, this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED
____s/Terry L. Wooten____
United States District Judge
May 27, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
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?