McNeil v. Florence County Solicitor Office et al
Filing
21
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation 16 by reference in this Order. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/13/2014. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Florence County Solicitor Office; and Inv. Jamie )
Cooper,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________ )
Carroll Devon McNeil,
Civil Action No.: 4:13-2068-MGL
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Carroll Devon McNeil’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
complaint file pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time Plaintiff filed the complaint he was a pretrial detainee at the Florence County Detention Center in Effingham, South Carolina.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pre-trial proceedings and a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the
time for doing so has expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See 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 of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which
a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the
absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir.2005) (stating that “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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by
reference in this Order.
This action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
January 13, 2014
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?