In Re: Patrica C. Wilson

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 11 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Appellant's Notice of Appeal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/29/2017. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Patricia C. Wilson,

)
)
Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
CitiFinancial Servicing LLC, )
)
Appellee,
)
)
Pamela Simmons-Beasley, )
)
Trustee.
)
________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-00940-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R [ECF No. 11]. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court summarily dismiss Appellant’s Notice of Appeal without prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based upon Appellant’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
a court order. R & R at 1–2.
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).

No parties have 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
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 therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 11] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES Appellant’s Notice of Appeal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
August 29, 2017

1

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

Appellant’s objections were due by August 25, 2017. See ECF Nos. 11 & 12.

2