Keel v. Waccamaw Mental Health et al

Filing 48

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 46 ] and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 1/10/2022.(hcic, )

Download PDF
4:21-cv-02247-RBH Date Filed 01/10/22 Entry Number 48 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Molly Keel, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Waccamaw Mental Health; Kathy Ward; ) Donno Lupo; M.U.S.C. Psychiatric ) Hospital Charleston, S.C.; E.M.S. Conway ) Hospital; Horry County Police Dept.; ) Magistrate Judge Harrelson; J. Reuben ) Long Detention Center, Conway, S.C.; and ) Judge Livingston, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-02247-RBH ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)1 of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, who recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. See ECF No. 46. 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). 1 The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). 4:21-cv-02247-RBH Date Filed 01/10/22 Entry Number 48 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 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 & 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)). Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 46] and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina January 10, 2022 2 s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge Plaintiff’s objections were due by January 8, 2022. See ECF Nos 46 & 47. 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?