McNeil v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 192

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 184 ) by reference. As such, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendants Greene, Wick, and Cullough for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/2/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Charles McNeil,

) Civil Action No. 5:12-2880-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Dr. Alewine, Nurse Owens, Nurse A. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Brown, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. (ECF No. 184.)
Plaintiff Charles McNeil (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se filed this action alleging violations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the case against Defendants Greene, Wick, and Cullough be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff
was advised of her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 178-1.)
However, he has not done so and objections were due on May 14, 2014. In the absence of a timely

filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
Having reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation for clear error, and finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 184) by reference. As such, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice as to Defendants Greene, Wick, and Cullough for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
July 2, 2014.

-2-