Cox v. Davis et al

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation 12 and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Oberman and Padula are dismissed from this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 05/16/2013. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Chavis Laranzo Cox,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Anthony Davis;
)
Bruce Oberman; and
)
Anthony J. Padula,
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:13-125-MGL-TER

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s pro se complaint seeking relief pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this
case was automatically referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings.
On February 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court partially dismiss the Complaint
in this action without prejudice as to Defendants Obeman and Padula. (ECF No. 12). The
Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Complaint be served on Defendant Davis.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court is charged with
making a de novo determination only 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 recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. However, Plaintiff filed
no objections. 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.1984).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s
findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Obeman and Padula are subject to summary
dismissal.

Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Oberman
and Padula are dismissed from this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 16, 2013