Sharpe v. Bush et al

Filing 25

ORDER: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation [ECF no. 20 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/25/2017. (prou, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Shawn William Sharpe,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Dennis Bush, Alvin Grabber, Captain
)
Fuller, and Lisa Young,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-00518-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Shawn William Sharpe, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-captioned Defendants. The matter is before the Court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R
[ECF No. 20]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice. R & R at 7.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R 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).
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
1

Plaintiff’s objections were due by July 5, 2017. See ECF No. 20.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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 and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 20] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
July 25, 2017

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2