Starr v. Smith et al

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Report and Recommendation 19 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/6/2013. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Levern Starr,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lt. Lamanda Smith; Ofc. Johnny
Vereen, and Ofc. McGyver,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-01244-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Levern Starr, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action, alleging
constitutional claims.

The matter is now 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. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. 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 Report and Recommendation 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 Report and Recommendation. The mail sent by the
Court to Plaintiff, which enclosed the Report and Recommendation, was “Returned to Sender” as
“Rejected.” Plaintiff has not furnished the Court with notice of a change of address different from

the address where the Report and Recommendation was mailed, as he is required to do. See June 25,
2013 Order, ECF No. 17. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only
for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310 (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.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 6, 2013

2