Green v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division et al
Filing
32
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's R&R (ECF No. 20 ). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Defendants South Caro lina Law Enforcement Division, 15th Circuit Drug Enforcement Unit, and Florence County Sheriff's Department without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 04/06/2018. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Darrell Green,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, )
15th Circuit Drug Enforcement Unit,
)
S/A Trevor Howlett, S/A Glenn Woods,
)
Agent Derrick Suggs,
)
Agent Casey Jones, Ofc. Shane Keith, and )
Florence County Sheriff’s Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 4:18-cv-00114-RBH-TER
ORDER
This 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) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). See ECF No. 20. The Magistrate Judge recommends that
the Court summarily dismiss three defendants from this action. Id. at p. 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
1
Plaintiff filed a “Return to R & R” stating he has “read the [R & R]” and “[a]t the present I find no grounds
to refute the finding of the Court.” See ECF No. 24.
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 &
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 Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 20]. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES Defendants South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, 15th Circuit Drug
Enforcement Unit, and Florence County Sheriff’s Department without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
April 6, 2018
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
2
The Magistrate Judge issued a separate order authorizing the issuance and service of process on the
remaining Defendants Howlett, Woods, Suggs, Jones, and Keith. See ECF No. 19.
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?