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, )

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-