Carelock v. State of South Carolina

Filing 40

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35 ), and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/11/2016. (dsto, ) Modified on 10/12/2016 to edit text. (dsto)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Roshune Lemarr Carelock, #292483,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, McCormick Correctional
)
Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-04168-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani
D. West’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on June 29, 2016, recommending that
the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
(ECF No. 35.) The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court
incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objections are made. Id.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by July 7, 2016.
(ECF No. 35.) However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,

1

199 (4th Cir. 1983) (explaining that a judge may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part [a]
[M]agistrate [Judge’s] report,” without explanation, when no objections are filed by the
challenging party). 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 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain any clear error.
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35), and this
case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
October 11, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2