Bennekin v. Hill Finklea Detention Center

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 16 is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 4/14/2015. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Terance Terill Bennekin,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Hill Finklea Detention Center,
)
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 5:14-4499-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

The plaintiff Terance Terill Bennekin (“the plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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) and Local Rule 73.02
for the District of South Carolina. On February 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
(ECF No. 16.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 16 at 5.) The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for
doing so expired on February 20, 2015. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to provide an explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory
committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are subject to
summary dismissal.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

April 14, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-2-