Glisson v. Frederick

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 12 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/28/2013. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
James R. Glisson, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bobby Frederick,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-01183-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff James R. Glisson, Jr., a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this fee
dispute against his attorney. The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without the
issuance of service of process.
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. The mail sent by the
Court to Plaintiff, which enclosed the Report and Recommendation, was “Returned to Sender” as
“Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not furnished the Court with notice of a change of address

different from the address where the Report and Recommendation was mailed, as he is required to
do. See July 3, 2013 Order, ECF No. 10.

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 Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 28, 2013

2