Davis v. People of the Federal BureauBureau of Prisons et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court adopts the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation 18 and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 07/26/2012. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jimmy Davis,
Plaintiff,
v.
People of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
FCI Bennettsville;
Warden D. Drew;
Assistant Warden Shults;
B. Keith; and Lt. L. Jones,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 4:12-757-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983.

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and

Recommendation of the 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 for the District of
South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

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 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 and
Recommendation. (Dkt. # 18 at 10). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report
and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation, 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in
this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #
18) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the above-captioned case
is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
July 26, 2012

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.