Rose v. Bamberg

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court ACCEPTS the Report 17 .Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the above listed case is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 05/22/2012. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
James Edward Rose, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Director Willie Bamberg,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-0261-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Doc. 17], filed on April 30, 2012, recommending that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint [Doc. 1], be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief
pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal
standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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. 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
to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Doc. 17 at 5]. However,
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to
appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After careful review of these documents, the court ACCEPTS the Report. [Doc. 17].
Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the above listed case is DISMISSED,
without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 22, 2012.