Howell v. Holland et al

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 22 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant McLeods motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7 ) be GRANTED and that Plaintiffs eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 05/17/2013. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
JAMES ODELL HOWELL, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DR. FRED HOLLAND and
)
McLEOD REGIONAL MEDICAL )
)
CENTER OF THE PEE DEE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00295-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff James Odell Howell, Jr. filed this employment action against Defendants Dr. Fred
Holland and McLeod Regional Medical Center of the Pee Dee. McLeod filed a motion to dismiss
four causes of action from Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. In a response, Plaintiff did not
object to dismissal of the claims so long as the dismissal was without prejudice. The 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)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for
the District of South Carolina. In light of Plaintiff’s response, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court grant McLeod’s motion and dismiss the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of
action from Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
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 Defendant McLeod’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED and
that Plaintiff’s eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 17, 2013

2