Weaver et al v. Dillon Department of Social Services et al

Filing 99

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 94 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/14/2015. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Dillon Department of Social
)
Services; Jackie Rowland; Karen
)
English; Pansy Page McElveen;
Dillon Internal Medicine Associates, )
)
P.A.; James P. Wallace, M.D.;
)
Felicia Gainey; Harriet Shealey;
Cottonwood Villa Assisted Living )
)
Facility, Inc.; Dillon County
)
Sheriff’s Office; Deputy Johnnie
May Smith; Deputy Chaddie Hayes; )
)
Deputy Linda Maimquist; Dillon
)
County Emergency Medical
Services; Florence Visiting Nurses )
)
Services, Inc.; John D. McInnis;
)
John Does 1–10; and Doe
Partnerships, Corporations, and/or )
)
other Entities 1–10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Beatrice E. Weaver and Gary
Weaver,

Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-2698-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiffs Beatrice E. Weaver and Gary Weaver (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, filed their
complaint against the above named Defendants in the Dillon County Court of Common Pleas on
February 21, 2014. See Compl., ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2. The matter was removed to this Court on July
2, 2014. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) 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. See R & R, ECF No. 94. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id. at
5.
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).
No 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 recommendations. 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 this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to prosecute and comply with a court order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
January 14, 2015

3