Dominick v. Valazak
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R (ECF No. 28 ) of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23 ). Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 01/09/2017. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lt. Maureen Valazak,
Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-01504-RBH
Plaintiff Malik Dominick, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, 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. 28. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). R & R at 2.
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 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 R & R 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).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Objections to the R & R were due by January 6, 2017. See ECF No. 28.
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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 and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 28] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
[ECF No. 23].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
January 9, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?