Blackstock v. Walgreens
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 9 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/19/2017. (hcic, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sepia Vonnetta Blackstock, )
Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-02097-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)(e) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 9]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s pro se complaint without prejudice. Id. at 4.
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).
Plaintiff has not 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).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Plaintiff’s objections were due by September 18, 2017. See ECF Nos. 9 & 10.
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 therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 9] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
September 19, 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?