Ahad v. Davis et al

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 18 , is ACCEPTED, and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 09/28/2017. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Bahaadur Aalim Abd ‘ul’ Ahad,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Cheryl Douglas, Chesterfield
)
Convalescent Center, Grace M. Villafranca, )
Cheraw Police Dept., Keith Thomas, John )
Does 1-4, Bessie Thomas,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-1156-TLW

ORDER

On May 3, 2017, Plaintiff Bahaadur Aalim Abd ‘ul’ Ahad brought this action, pro se,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for “defamation (libel per se) and (slander per se).” ECF No. 1-1 at
2. This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (the
Report), filed on July 26, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom
this case was previously assigned pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 18.
The Report recommends that this case be summarily dismissed. Id. The deadline to object to the
Report was August 9, 2017. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension, which the Court granted,
extending the deadline until August 24, 2017. ECF No. 21. On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
request for a second extension of time, which the Court granted, extending the deadline to object
to the Report until September 8, 2017. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, relevant filings, and applicable law. The
Court notes that it extended the deadline to object on two occasions. Plaintiff failed to file
objections to the Report by the extended deadlines. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
18, is ACCEPTED, and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Chief United States District Judge
September 28, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina