Moore v. Hulon
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 15 ] and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/8/2017. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States of America,
Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-01309-RBH
This 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) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 21]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
R & R at pp. 2, 7.
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
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Defendant’s objections were due by November 3, 2017, and Plaintiff’s objections were due by November
6, 2017. See ECF Nos. 21 & 22.
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)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review
and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d
1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Carr v. Hutto, 737 F.2d 433, 434 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 21] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 15] and DISMISSES this action without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
November 8, 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?