Bach v. United State Government, The
Filing
22
ORDER AND OPINION: The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation 16 to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 4/30/2014. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
United States Government,
)
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________________ )
David Bach,
Civil Action No.: 4:13-3503-MGL
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff David Bach (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against the United
States Government (“Defendant”) alleging harassment by the Central Intelligence Agency or another
unnamed federal agency. (ECF No. 1.) The matter is 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) D.S.C. On March 7, 2014, Magistrate Judge West
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice and service of process for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No.
16.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 16 at 5.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on March 24,
2014. 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 and advisory committee’s
note).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and
this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
April 30, 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?