Filyaw v. Gibbs et al

Filing 13

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Signed by the Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/11/2014. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
William Fate Filyaw,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Bo Gibbs and Lisa Yarbrough
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-02896-JMC
ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before
the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 10),
filed on August 20, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a
recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.” Wallace v.
Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271
(1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

1

Plaintiff was advised of his rights to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 10 at 7)
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, 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 advisory committee's note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal
from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ACCEPTS the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it
is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

United States District Judge
September 11, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

3