Johnson v. Donahoe et al

Filing 44

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 37 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendants Williams, Brooks, and Christensons motion to dismiss 28 is GRANTED and that Defendants Williams, Brooks, and Christenson are hereby DISMISSED. All motions pertaining to these defendants are deemed moot. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 01/23/2013. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Vincent Johnson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Patrick Donahoe, Sandra Williams, )
Beverly Brooks, and Paul
)
Christenson,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

Civil Action No.: 4:12-cv-00390-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Vincent Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants Patrick
Donahoe, Sandra Williams, Beverly Brooks, and Paul Christenson, seeking damages for an alleged
illegal firing. Defendants Williams, Brooks, and Christenson filed a motion to dismiss. This matter
is now 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) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. In light of Plaintiff’s response indicating his consent
to dismiss Defendants Williams, Brooks, and Christenson, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
the Court grant the motion to dismiss.
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. 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 Defendants Williams, Brooks, and Christenson’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED and that Defendants Williams, Brooks, and Christenson are hereby DISMISSED. All
motions pertaining to these defendants are deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
January 23, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

2