Roach v. Timmons et al

Filing 49

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39 ), GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34 ), and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 05/16/2017. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Christopher Joel Roach, #608050, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) Bernard McKie, ) in his official capacity as warden, ) South Carolina Department of Corrections, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-00948-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 39), filed on November 18, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff Christopher Joel Roach’s action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to respond to Defendant Bernard McKie’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34). 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 Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which 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 to which specific objections are made. The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 39-1). However, neither party filed any objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to 1   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). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39), GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge May 16, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina     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?