Nelson et al v. Sam's Club
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Second Motion for Extension of Time 30 is denied; Defendants Motion to Dismiss 7 is granted; and this case is dismissed in its entirety. All other motions are deemed moot. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 05/18/2011. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Yvonne Nelson, Desmond Nelson, and
C.A. No.: 4:10-3020-RBH
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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 and Recommendation to
which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Report and
Recommendation was mailed to the plaintiff on April 15, 2011. Any objections were thus due
on May 2, 2011. The plaintiff filed a motion for additional time and in essence requested an
indefinite extension, and this Court gave her an additional two weeks until May 16, 2011 to
file objections. Plaintiff then filed a motion on May 16, 2011 for additional time for the same
reasons given in the first request. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify a
second extension of time. In spite of her assertion that she cannot file objections for financial
reasons, she has filed two extension requests with the Court. Additionally, she states that she
has new evidence but does not indicate the nature of such new evidence.
In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310
(4th Cir. 2005) stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not
conduct 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.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time (Docket Entry # 30) is
denied; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry # 7) is granted; and this case is dismissed
in its entirety. All other motions are deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 18, 2011
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?