Hill v. Stirling et al

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10 ) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint in summarily DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/24/2015. (mcot, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Warren Hill, ) Civil Action No.: 5:15-4217-MGL ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) ) Bryan Stirling; Larry Cartledge; South ) Carolina Department of Corrections, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________ On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff Warren Hill, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action construed as pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for review pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A . On October 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge prepared a Report and Recommendation, (“the Report”), recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 10). Objections to the Report were due by November 16, 2015. Plaintiff did not file any Objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for review by this Court. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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). Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 10), and finding no clear error in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge November 24, 2015 Columbia, South Carolina -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?